Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uncollapsing theorem

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Woohookitty 02:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Uncollapsing theorem

 * del. nonnotable fantasy. original research. mikka (t) 28 June 2005 19:26 (UTC)
 * del. the cited research itself is poorly referenced. independent google references found on uncollapsing or noncollapsing seem to discuss a different concept. Waveguy 2 July 2005 15:10 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind. This article should be merged with the aforementioned link. "Uncollapsing theorem" is sufficiently equivalent to "quantum decoherence in the brain" and although the latter is the subject of great contention, it merits retention. Fosterremy 2 July 2005 18:53 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsubstantiated garbage. KSchutte 4 July 2005 04:50 (UTC)
 * keep: I'd keep it or merge it with another article if possible, as it is a concept, while pure fantasy, that many scientists and authors have proposed in the past (eg: the Quarantine link). Additionally, it has been proposed by some as a possible mechanism behind 'magical' phenomena. While to my knowledge there is no evidence for the theorem, as long as it is clearly labelled as such, I don't see the harm.--Peter bertok 4 July 2005 11:25 (UTC)
 * Delete. Cataloguing each of the billions of wacky ideas that people come up with is not the purpose of Wikipedia.  This is neither notable nor proven. &mdash; 131.230.133.185 5 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)
 * delete --Pjacobi 07:44, July 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * delete nonnotable probably original research. Salsb 23:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete original research, non-notable. --Bambaiah 08:29, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep with caveats I believe that substantial but odd ideas need to be documented. My first caveat is that this is labelled as possibly pseudoscience/possibly protoscience and should be read as an idea, not fact. My second caveat is that related ideas should be included.  Peter Bertok has suggested that there are similar ideas around - (Quarantine) - ideally we need some more substance.  See http://www.360d.com/alpha for the source, as you can see, we really need something a bit more substantial from other sources to keep the article. See Wikipedia policy on theories - this is an "unstable neologism" without other supporting ideas.
 * Delete. Non-notable crackpottery, original research. Quale 16:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
 * keep with caveats Since the topic of Consciousness is on the frontline of research any idea, however crazy it is, once it is spelt out should be kept for other's scrutiny. By deleting it totally we are prejudging posterity's capabilities. --Profvk 12:03, 23 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.