Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G/S :)c Consciousness


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. joe deckertalk to me 15:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

G/S :)c Consciousness

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD. There is no indication that the concept is notable. All sources/links are primary sources or non-reliable sources, and the article appears to fail WP:OR as well as WP:N. bonadea contributions talk 08:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 09:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete The only reference is a submission to a public inquiry. It is not an official document.  Anyone can make a submission.  Therefore it carries no weight.  Not notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, patent nonsense. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, Starblind is right, I think I became a little dumber after reading just the first paragraph.JoelWhy (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, WP:ESSAY, WP:FRINGE, WP:BOLLOCKS. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 13:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, though I'm aware that my reaction to the article, caused in my physical Unit, is due to the imbalance between two opposite stimuli, and yet, still not notable.   Wikipelli Talk   14:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your !vote has a specific and predictable character, though. --bonadea contributions talk 14:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Only inasmuch as it's influenced by the New World Order though. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I wouldn't be opposed to a G1 speedy deletion as patent nonsense.  Otherwise, this doesn't even begin to assert notability, has nothing approaching a reliable source, and seems primarily intended to linkspam the randomly (?) placed external links. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as quackery and utter crap. DarkAudit (talk) 00:49, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've blocked the article's creator indefinitely for disruptive editing/trolling. The article itself as originally created was disruptive/trolling and I am sure the editor expected it would be deleted if they knew anything about Wikipedia, and the repeated removal of the AfD template after being warned simply reinforced that. Dougweller (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know that the author expected the article to be summarily deleted. The original posting contained an irrelevant link to a page about a "Twin Wave Geometric Principle" -- basically pages and pages of gibberish about some supposedly new function that has deep meanings.  Between that and the fact that the creator of this G/S :)c Concsiousness method actually proposed it as a solution to the government of Victoria, I'd have to say that this article was not posted as trolling.  This person is clearly deeply vested in fringe science.  Not that I believe for a second that the article should be kept, just that I dispute DarkAudit's assessment of the author's motives in creating it.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Not posted as trolling? This early version says  "what Cindy Taylor calls New World Order Disorder. In her opinion, NWO Disorder is when the belief system breaks down due to an influx of information which contrasts severely to that which was previously known to be true." Now Cindy Taylor's paper  seems to be pretty much nonsense, but New World Order is not part of that nonsense. Interesting that Taylor's paper mentions 'twine' and sine', the editor's account name is Cinsines, and there's a website link to [junkyardinnovations.com] which "introduces the twine". Looks like trolling to me. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't disagree that the concept is utter gibberish. But trolling implies a deliberate attempt to introduce patently false information, and in this case, I don't think that's the case.  The author (one might assume from the username that the author of the article is the author of the concept) genuinely believes this to be a valid concept.  The author may be seriously deluded, but I don't think their intention is malicious.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Am I applying 'quackery' wrong? I wasn't questioning anyone's motives here, but the article is still crap and should have been obliterated long ago. DarkAudit (talk) 22:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment No, it's quackery, just not malicious quackery.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.