Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of Consciousness


 * 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--Tone 21:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Theory of Consciousness

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

The article is basically a essay. Has no sources for any claims made. My apologies if I made any mistakes with the AFD I haven't done this in awhile. M8v2 (talk) 05:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please allow discussion of this article. I contend that "the article is basically a essay" is not grounds to delete the post. My situation is similar to you saying you havn't used AFD in awhile, since I have never posted on Wikipedia before. There are no sources because I did not use any sources. I swear upon my life and my honor that I thought of this independently. Since writing the article I have searched the internet for articles on consciousness and a theory of consciousness, I have found no reference which resembles the theory. I humbly ask for this article be read and discussed. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justyang (talk • contribs) 06:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you for that link. Btw, what do you think of the theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justyang (talk • contribs) 06:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Ok I'm sorry. I just woke up and attempting to find wiki sources to back up what I have said and to get rid of the vagueness. However, it doesn't belong under "Wiki: consciousness" as they, like all consciousness articles I've read, only relate consciousness to the human experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.21.13.146 (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh been so long I can barely remember how to edit in links. Read here and  here. Eh maybe I'm just nitpicking so I'd like to get thoughts from other wikipedia users. To be fair though a good place for something like this would be everything2.--M8v2 (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "I thought of this independently", ergo original research. McWomble (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Check your talk page.--M8v2 (talk) 06:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and hope this AfD won't ramble as much as the article. If this content belongs anywhere here (it doesn't) it's inside the article on consciousness. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as the author admits it is original research. McWomble (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I like it, but unfortunately WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:V trump WP:ILIKEIT. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Author admits that this article is in breach of WP:OR. &mdash; neuro(talk) 11:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an essay, so it is WP:OR, per the author's own admission.  Further, I can't imagine how this article could be salvageably encyclopedic, short of a complete rewrite, as the whole article is an WP:OR essay.  Thus, I favor deletion.  &hArr; &int;Æ S   dt  @ 00:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Further backing &int;Æ S , The author -on his own talk page- says: "I had an idea for a science fiction story and it ended up being what you see" , so it is definitely WP:OR hence eligible for deletion.--Elhawarey (talk) 16:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Then you can expand consciousness with a section on research on non-human creatures. Doesn't mean you should start a new article. Potatoswatter (talk) 18:00, 26 October 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.