Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pioneers in radionics


 * 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   merge into Radionics. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Pioneers in radionics

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

This really should be renamed "List of pioneers in radionics," since that's what it really is. Nevertheless, there's no indication of what it takes to be included in the list. Nothing is sourced. Even referring to these people as "pioneers" in a pseudoscientific field of nonsense is POV. eaolson (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - there's no evidence that most of these people even existed, at least as far as that page goes. And yes, the idea of pioneers in a field in which meaningful developmental research seems impossible. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep There is evidence that these are real people. http://www.fiu.edu/%7Emizrachs/altern-med.html Also, I challenge the neutrality of the assertion that this is all "nonsense." Because you personally do not believe in it, you seek to enforce your point of view by deleting the article outright. It is true the article needs to provide sources, but we have citation tags to bring that to the editor's attention. Aletheon (talk) 23:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment It would be a unfair POV to describe radionics as nonsense in the text of the article. I think it's fair comment in an AfD debate to suggest that unrepeatable, unverifiable 'results' are a poor basis for notability. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with Radionics The individual people here are not shown to be sufficiently notable for articles, and a list of them in this way isinappropriate. There is no separate notability from the main article, in which they can be mentioned. DGG (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that a merge would be warranted. Aletheon (talk) 04:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge with Radionics (currently 8 kB). If kept, it should probably be renamed Origins of radionics or somesuch. - Eldereft (cont.) 05:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge what can be sourced with Radionics. If any of the people listed are notable enough to need more than a sentence or two, they are likely notable enough for their own article. -- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:21, 30 July 2008 (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.