Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habit body


 * 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. Michig (talk) 20:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Habit body

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I'm taking this to AfD as I haven't a cotton-picking idea what to make of it, but I'm pretty sure this falls under WP:BLOG or WP:NOTESSAY or something similar. Automatic Strikeout  19:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete - this seems as if it has absolutely no relevance to Wikipedia at all, but seems to be a spam article created by a malicious user. Lukeno94 (talk) 20:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The current article is a WP:SYNTH essay, crossing WP:NPOV. Notice that on Talk:Habit body, the author complains that Wikipedia is not providing protection for "new useful ideas", indicating some confusion about the Wikipedia's role. (I note also that the author of one of the cited books "Your Habit Body: Owners Manual" has a domain name matching the account name of the article creator.) But whatever the quality of the present article, the further question is whether normal editing could result in a more suitable article, and whether the concept is notable? In this respect, one might point to its usage in Merleau-Ponty (not mentioned in the article but visible in Google Books); so may there be a salvagable article on this topic? AllyD (talk) 21:47, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:OR, WP:SYNTH or blog. Peridon (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. At least in this form, purely the fringe theory of Bruce Dickson, who has written (and self-published) a surprisingly large number of related volumes.  I don't think any of this is strictly a copyright violation from Dickson's works, but there's not really any question where it originated.  And third party sources are entirely lacking.  Maurice Merleau-Ponty's use of the term was something rather entirely different (and isn't mentioned in his article, so a redirect doesn't appear necessary at this time). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:06, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is 100% pure WP:OR. Looie496 (talk) 15:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 16:03, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete This page is just a violation of WP:OR And therefore should be deleted.Bizarre carl (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not to repeat the same words, but this is truly an essay and would need to be rewritten. SwisterTwister   talk  21:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research. Wikipedia is not a webhost for essays.-- xanchester  (t)  06:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * 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.