Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Predictive programming


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 01:11, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Predictive programming

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There hasn't been outside notice of this concept that conspiracy theorists talk about on youtube or in their David Icke or Alex Jones cults. If the academics who study conspiracy theorists begin to interrogate these claims seriously, we will then have the independent sources that are necessary to establish a fringe theory like this as notable. Until such independent sources are found, this article cannot be written properly at Wikipedia which requires a neutral article without original research. jps (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I suspect that the subject is probably notable, but the cited sources are fringe and massively fail WP:RS. A Google yielded a ton of hits but the first ten pages were pretty much all fringe and the few that weren't would still not have met our standards. As it stands it is little more than a PROFRINGE essay. The article currently fails WP:V, WP:PROFRINGE, and WP:UNDUE. Even if RS sources are found, my advice would be to blank the article and start from scratch. Yes, it really is that bad. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - simply non-notable, even as fringe theories go, as the lack of reliable sources demonstrates. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  19:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete; If a low-notability WP:FRINGE topic has little coverage by independent sources, then it's impossible for us to maintain a neutral article. Deletion is the best solution. bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as it stands - so far this article has no non-fringe sources. Has the concept been raised in a single RS, even one just documenting fringe ideas? If we can add two or three non-fringe RSes noting this as a noteworthy topic, this might be saveable - David Gerard (talk) 16:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence that this concept has been discussed in any depth beyond fringe sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:ONEWAY WP:NFRINGE. - Location (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you might have meant WP:NFRINGE. jps (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - Location (talk) 21:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete While it could be argued there should be more coverage of 'notable' conspiracy theories on Wikipedia (in their own articles, where they can be shown with the facts that prove they're preposterous), as none of the sites are ever going to be anywhere near WP:RS, but as policy stands now, it cannot meet WP:GNG, and I see no reason to start with this one. This article would need a complete rewrite in order to be presented in an encyclopedic and factual way. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  23:46, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd be content with anything resembling an RS or two ... - David Gerard (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Regretful delete In years gone by I had to stay up late listening to shortwave radio to find stuff like this, or seek it out in other ways. Predictive Programming is very widely discussed in the loonosphere but unfortunately I have not been able to find any WP-compliant reliable sources. (The closest thing I can find is this, which alas is a wiki.) It's regrettable that we can't have an article on such a well-known topic. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Even the RW article is made of fringe sources. (And I just polished it up using the sources in this article.) RW has very different sourcing standards to WP - David Gerard (talk) 10:46, 28 April 2015 (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.