Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote viewing data connects to religious scriptures

 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 - should be cleaned up and merged - SimonP 13:55, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

Remote viewing data connects to religious scriptures
This article is biased and unencyclopaedic 82.41.26.26 20:11, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup, condense, NPOV, and Merge to Remote viewing. --Tabor 20:28, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Cleanup, condense, NPOV, and don't merge to Remote viewing: it is already too large. However the title must be changed, since it is POVish. I' d suggest Remote viewing and  religious scriptures. Kookery, but notable. mikka (t) 20:40, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not knowledgable here, but this article looks like a book report for this Cosmic Voyage work written by Courtney Brown. Could this be merged with his article, (after the blatent POV is removed)? No vote. func (talk) 21:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * What the...? Here's a sample: "Another point is that Brown had not yet remote viewed the reptilians in his first book, but released data from his remote viewing sessions about Adam and Eve that showed that there was a subspace interference affecting both of them. His second book suggests that the reptilians could be the source of that interference; this would corroborate that same teaching in Genesis." Condense massivelty and merge with the kook's page. -- BD2412 talk 21:21, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
 * Comment. Uh, I'm not really sure what to say about this. Obviously, this stuff is dripping with POV. Yes, it could be cleaned up, condensed and NPOVed, and merged with something else, but I think the important issue here is whether the topic itself really is at all notable? Are connections between the alleged results of remote viewing and religious scripture important enough to even warrant a short sentence or two in remote viewing or some other suitable article, if even that? I mean, yeah, I'm a skeptic, no question, but that's kind of beside the point here; I absolutely approve of having articles for remote viewing and other similar things. But is this particular subset of remote viewing really notable or significant? I'm not familiar enough with the subject to tell. I'd appreciate it if someone who's better informed here could put this in perspective... -- Captain Disdain 14:03, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. These are just ravings ("The most important element of Brown's second book is that his remote viewed data suggests that the subspace reptilian interference is still active today and seems responsible for the weaponization of outer space.") carmeld1 02:58, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - advocacy, possibly connected to claims of David Icke - Skysmith 09:26, 6 Jun 2005 (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 .