Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of the universe according to John C. Lilly


 * 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. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Origin of the universe according to John C. Lilly

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No sources establish this as an idea that has independent notability from that of its author. Any coherent content needs to be merged into the article on John C. Lilly, but this isn't a valid article subject. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   Tim Vickers (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.   —Tim Vickers (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Absent an overwhelming number of independent sources specifically about his theory - which the article doesn't evidence and I'd probably have seen at least some of if they existed - this does not merit a standalone article. I would just delete this, as I don't see anything worth merging or any independent sources to support a merge.  GRBerry 20:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge&mdash;The man himself is notable and this article is brief, so I'll just suggest a merge to the John C. Lilly page.&mdash;RJH (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete John C. Lilly is notable but there is nothing in this article worth keeping. There are two sections of content. One is a description of the components of the universe according to Lilly. This is mostly incoherent. Also it is written as fact when it should be addressed as fringe science or fantasy as in Time Cube. It is also potentially a copyright violation of Simulations of God if anyone wants to check. The other section quotes Lilly directly and is more coherent, but the article does not name the work as is required for a quote of this size. Wronkiew (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wronkiew. I came to this AfD to say what Wronkiew has said, but I will summarise for emphasis: John C. Lilly is notable and should have an article.  However, none of this whatever-it-is should be in it.  Whatsoever.  This is fit for the trash heap.
 * -- Forgot signature, sorry. 70.100.83.62 (talk) 08:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  00:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per above. If there is anything useful in this article, it should be moved to John C. Lilly. I found the lengthy table, though, to be quite unintelligible, and the lengthy quote not much more informative, so couldn't spot anything I felt was worth moving. Tim Ross   (talk)  11:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The article as written is non-encyclopedic original research (at least I think it's OR, can't really tell because it doesn't make any sense to me). Nothing to be merged into the main article. -Atmoz (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete POV-fork. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2009 (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.