Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unconscious - The Real Life


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Unconscious - The Real Life

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This is an attempt to promote someone's self-published OR essay on a new "philosophical science". The creator has asked several times at the refdesk about how to create an article about his new philosophical concept and been told that Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Ka renjc 13:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC) Just to make it clear, this and this show that the creator's OR on this webpage is the basis of this article. Ka renjc 14:01, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as patent original research. As a side note, I'm sure the creator is also the author but it remains a presumptive copyvio at this time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 16:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Copied from talk page: The user Sushil10s received an intimation (below) form Karenjc 14:01, 31 October 2010: This is an attempt to promote someone's self-published OR essay on a new "philosophical science". Further, as the user asked information four times to you and received encouraging guidelines to publish an article (and published), next intimation (continuation of the above) was: "Nominator unsure of category"

Discussion

The article is entirely neutral and is unique and does not belong to the user. It will remain undisputed and no copyright violation is there as it is unique and goes in an acceptable way with, and according to, your basic article publication policies. These features shall avoid for the article to be in the discussion for 'AfD'.

The indication given to be in AfD is "Nominator unsure of category" which is unreasonable as the category is philosophy and it is also following the concepts of the psychology and mental health. However, as the user was not sure how to add multiple categories and also asked questions four times so it was looking awkward to interfere repeatedly in the Help Desk.

If you like the user to add further categories or editing according to your view, it would be good enough for the user to work upon.

Moreover, there was no sponsorship (or scholarship) for the philosopher and was going through financial hardship. It should be our approach as a human to work for the philosopher's view. This was the reason the user was putting all the efforts (for web marketing) which may not be gentle, to make the philosophy as an acceptable view to all of us.

Again, the article is entirely unique and does not belong to the user; and the user apologize for not being gentle in the web market.

If you can guide what best to do in keeping this article at its place (wikipedia) including the presence in the web world to remain approachable to all, the user would be grateful to you. We all are pleased to use your service for reliable information.

Regards

Sushil10s end of copy Peridon (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I take it to be original research - and possibly by someone who is not a native speaker of English but who has made a very good job writing in it. If I correctly understand the above post that I have copied to here, the intention is not to promote any book, but to promote the ideas contained in the article. Unfortunately, this is not a function of Wikipedia. There must be somewhere for ideas like these to be put forward, but I don't know where this is. If anyone else does, please say. Peridon (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, but, as we keep explaining, Wikipedia does not publish original work. Sushi110s, why not publish it at Wikademia, which does welcome original work? JohnCD (talk) 16:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Also copied from talk page: Wikipedia

Your conclusion is obvious as you are the only podium for the worldwide accepted and reliable source of knowledge, however, the intention of deletion is still unclear to the user. If an article which does not violate the copyright law and certainly remains undisputed, we shall accept it.

Further, all the concepts are within the set regions of philosophy, psychology, mental health and follows them and there is no difference as far as the conclusion is concerned. The only difference of the conclusion that you are with is promoting the idea.

If it needs to be edited and requires certain changes to make the conclusion neutral, i.e, "the user is not promoting the idea", we may work upon it and can keep the article where it shall remain (in you).

Regards

Sushil10s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushil10s (talk • contribs) 17:09, 31 October 2010 (UTC) end of copy -- John of Reading (talk) 21:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment - Sushil, I think you still don't understand why this article is at AfD. To summarize: there is a theory or philosophical concept called "Unconscious - The Real Life", laid out in a self-published website at weebly.com. You are trying to write a Wikipedia article about the contents of that site.  But self-published essays are unreliable sources, and new theories (even if they are a synthesis of the work of existing scholars and researchers) are original research.  Both are unacceptable on Wikipedia.  Are you the author of the material?  You do say you are trying "to make the philosophy as an acceptable view to all of us".  In other words, you want to promote the concepts to a wider audience.  Good luck with that, but you can't do it on Wikipedia.  Wikipedia only publishes articles about things that are already known and documented, it discourages people linking to websites they control or have written, and it strongly discourages people from writing about subjects to which they have a close personal link (such as a new concept they have developed, for example). "Unconscious - The Real Life" is at AfD because there's no evidence at all that it describes an established philosophical concept that has been covered under that name in books, academic journals, news articles or other reliable sources.  Unless that evidence is provided, the subject is unsuitable for Wikipedia.  JohnCD's suggestion of Wikademia is a good one.  Ka renjc 22:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Copied from talk page (part 3):
 * Delete per nom. I don't know why this is taking this much discussion when it's clearly WP:OR.  Dismas |(talk) 00:08, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, OR/synthesis, non-notable. Hairhorn (talk) 02:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

The user firmly agrees that the site belongs to him, however, he is the editor and not the writer/author of the concept. It is also true that the concepts are steadily collected on the editor's self-made website. This does not affect the article to be deleted as it is an undisputed philosophical concept which defines the existing psychological terminologies and philosophical sciences with the unique logical language in an acceptable manner.

If the deletion has been decided on the basis of the content's availability on the wikademia which was pasted yesterday as of necessity to be on the web (suggested by JohnCD), the user wishes to take it back, if it is the indication.

Again, the philosophy is within the existing categories 'psychology and philosophy' but modified in a logical way and will remain undisputed.

Moreover, if the decision has been taken by the editorial board, the user does not wish to go against the pool of the experts but wishes to serve humanity.

The user is pleased to receive all the replies on the concerned article but your conclusion to remove it is still unclear as it is not following the criteria you proposed.

We, undoubtedly, respect you and use your services.

Regards

Sushil10s —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sushil10s (talk

end of copy Peridon (talk) 08:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I've messaged Sushil10s to ask that they use this page rather than the talk page. I don't think we're getting through yet over the reason for the deletion proposal, though. Peridon (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong delete with assertion of WP:SNOW - Nobody has been able to come up with a single valid argument for the retention of this obvious promotion of original research and synthesis. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  12:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - clearly WP:OR and/or WP:SYN. It has to go. ukexpat (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2010 (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.