Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logosophy

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was Keep. -- AllyUnion (talk) 04:06, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Logosophy
Claims to be science, which it clearly isn't; but I haven't a clue what it is. I must concede that it does seem to have some paying customers. Actually it looks like quintessential twaddle to me, but perhaps somebody reading VfD who can read books marketed as "popular psychology", etc., without either laughing or nodding off can make some sense out of this article or its subject. -- Hoary 05:47, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)


 * If this is a real philosophy, as odd as it seems to be, then we should probably have an article about it. There are 649 Google hits, so I would vote keep and cleanup.  RickK 07:48, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: Ah, but if this were a real philosophy, wouldn't it be discussed in peer-reviewed philosophy journals? That was one criterion suggested for Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe -- which seemed (to me) unlike this in not very obviously being total blather. 649 hits doesn't sound very much, especially as this hocus-pocus has more than one website of its own. I suppose genuinely (if inexplicably) popular blather, such as The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, deserves an article; but 649 hits? -- Hoary 08:44, 2005 Jan 30 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * Cleanup. My standard for CTMU was notability rather than peer review, and "logosofia" has 4390 hits. Gazpacho 11:04, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 01:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sure it sounds dumb, but so does Theosophy and we have an article on that.  This kind of claptrap is big business in Argentina - would be implicit bias to delete it.