Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integral Cosmology


 * 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 of the debate was delete, other topics will have to be AfD'd separately. Babajobu 21:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Integral Cosmology
Non-notable pseudoscientific supposed-subbranch of cosmology. The Integral Cosmologists are "clairvoyant, visionary, channeller", etc. Scant Google hits for "integral cosmology". I have some background in Astrophysics, and have never heard of this. This article was previously created by the same user and deleted, but this is apparently not a repost according to MarkGallagher. Delete &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-25 08:24Z 
 * Delete. 85 hits on google with the first one being Wikipedia. Other hits seem to mention this all encompassing view of cosmology, however, at this point in time I don't think it deserves its own article. Perhaps it would do just fine as a mention in Cosmology. Jawz 08:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete False advertising, pseudoscience posing as cosmology. Ruby 19:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom. -- Nacon Kantari  e |t||c|m 20:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - makeup. Latinus 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - makeup. Latinus 20:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: Doing more research, I discovered there are also articles on Integral ecology, Integral yoga, Integral psychology, etc. I know enough physical cosmology to tell that Integral Cosmology is bollocks, but would like someone else to comment about the other ones.  Perhaps they can all be slight-merged to Integral theory (philosophy), iff that is a notable pseudoscience (else they should all be deleted).  There is also Esoteric cosmology, which is apparently not related to this Integral stuff.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-26 10:10Z 


 * 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.