Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotronics (therapy)


 * 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. In a discussion with block evasion, I'm not counting IP opinions.  Sandstein  08:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Psychotronics (therapy)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nonnotable pseudoscientific snake oil mumbo-jumbo from 1970s Staszek Lem (talk) 16:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Even with the struck out comments I am not convinced yet that there has been enough input to clearly close this with a consensus to delete. KaisaL (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as nonnotable snake oil mumbo-jumbo. I mean... delete per WP:NFRINGE. Zero coverage of the term in this context in academic or news sources. Zero independent coverage in any type of source as far as I can tell. I'm not convinced it was ever a real thing. —PermStrump  ( talk )  22:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably Merge into Parapsychology if you're not willing to let the templates do their job. I didn't read it throughly, but judging by the quick read it's about parapsychology topics. This is just about when (late 1960s-1970s) parapsychology researchers successfully dubbed the term parapsychology into psychotronics to gather the scientific aptitude they were looking for (it's even written in the Constitution of the Parapsychological Association that they were seeking to advance it as a science). The association formed in 1957, about 10 years later some parapsychology researcher dubbed the term, and about 10 years later this article came out (in 1976). It's no secret the dubbing was successfull and learned people got involved in it (physicians as those few cited in the only source), yet today parapsychology is still considered pseudoscience by scientific consensus thus it deserves to be merged if no other sources can be found. So this belongs to parapsychology. 87.6.112.110 (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It does not matter when and how. The subject, namely the specific usage of the term, is nonnotable by itself. And merging it somewhere is WP:UNDUE. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. I think it looks nonnotable for having its own article, not to be part of parapsychology. Also I think it should be given the templates some time to possibly do their job in my opinion, before deleting it. 87.16.5.14 (talk) 18:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are not very familiar with the ways how wikipedia works. To form an educated opinion about our policies and be in a position to influence them, you have to work in wikipedia for some time. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See [ User talk:87.6.112.110 ] and [ Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents ]. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note I have struck the comments from a block evader. -- GB fan 01:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not decided whether to support deletion or retention, but I do not the strong probability that this page was created in an attempt to boost sales of the product described at [ http://www.quwave.com/defender.html ]. (I, of course, prefer the product at [ http://zapatopi.net/afdb/ ] and the TRUTH at [ http://zapatopi.net/blackhelicopters/ ]... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge into parapsychology per what the block evader reasoned. 149.254.224.221 (talk) 01:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as apart from what's listed, I'm still not seeing enough to convincingly suggest merging where as it's currently still suggesting questionability. SwisterTwister   talk  00:17, 13 July 2016 (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.