Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Voice to skull

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. Alexbrn talk 02:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Inadequate reliable sources to support an article. Current article is almost entirely OR. Looie496 (talk) 02:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Fringe POV fork of Psychotronics. LuckyLouie (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above. How this got through AfC is a mystery to me. WP:OR/synthesis from start to finish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Entire article is verbatim original research. hmssolent lambast patrol records 05:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Makes Natural News look normal. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 07:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable POV fork. Does anyone know where the AfC discussion is? It doesn't seem to show up on search. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Microwave auditory effect per GDallimore. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What is AfC discussion? - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The article is the result of the AfC draft. It was moved into article space because it was believed to be appropriate for mainspace.  There was an attempt to get a RfC on the AFC draft which is out of process.  I looked at the draft then and was not impressed with the reliable sources and the prevelance then, and I am still do not think that this article should have been promoted out to article space frin AfC. Hasteur (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I am the article starter and main contributor. I'd appreciate it if whoever votes here provide examples from the article to support their argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synsepalum2013 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In support of my vote to delete, I give you ... "The whole article" ... --Roxy the dog (resonate) 01:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Now, now, let's be fair. there is nothing wrong with the part that says "A start-class article from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia" and the six places where "[Edit]" is used. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. An article being of poor quality or containing original research, by itself, is an improper reason for deletion. WP:OR is a reason to remove content, not remove an article; non-notability WP:N would be a reason to remove an article. From WP:BEFORE: “If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD.” There are not a lot of reliable sources that discuss the term, but it looks like there are enough for at least a short article. While the topic attracts conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientific speculation, pseudoscience doesn't disqualify it from encyclopedic coverage; consider ghosts, bigfoot, UFOs, and even the fictional holodeck. Rules of WP:RS reliable sources still apply, and there are many self-published books, blogs, and other unreliable references to avoid, so I may be overestimating its coverage, but it seems like a plausibly notable topic, or perhaps synonym/subtopic of another article topic. If you based your decision on the content of the current article, I'd re-assess it based on an independent (i.e. not from the article) determination of notability or other legitimate grounds for article deletion. ––Agyle (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak delete There is potential for an article here as this does appear to be a real technology with real (ie, NOT mind-control) applications. Problem is, as it currently stands, it has been mixed up with all the conspiracy theories surrounding psychotronics generally which means very few (possibly none!) of the sources address the topic of the article directly or in significant detail as required by WP:N. Of the conspiracy theories, there's nothing that isn't already covered in psychotronics so there's no reason to merge. In summary, currently nothing worth keeping, but I feel that there must be some reliable sources and the potential for a proper technology article if someone is willing to sort through the dross. GDallimore (Talk) 20:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What's interesting is that for a topic which very few reliable sources address directly or significantly there are huge amounts of online discussion on it or related topics. You will be surprised if you search "Voice in skull" and "mind control" in Google and examine the first page or two. This contrast in mainstream and internet coverage is curious to say the least thus I think this issue is worth looking into and deserves open discussion on Wikipedia. - Synsepalum2013 (talk) 21:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, that's not at all interesting (nor surprising...). Unreliable sources are almost never interesting. In fact, that's EXACTLY why this article is going to be deleted essentially without a struggle... GDallimore (Talk) 21:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a striking contrast, but is extremely common among fringe or pop culture topics that appear in Articles for Deletion. We're looking into it right here, but Wikipedia articles are not for open discussions (if that's what you meant); they're for encyclopedic coverage of notable topics, with well referenced sources. ––Agyle (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * GDallimore, I don't see any relation to psychotronics, as the WP article defines psychotronics (i.e., "the study of parapsychology"). While the voice to skull article opens by saying it's a psychotronic weapon, that's nowhere suggested in the reference cited, and the Army defined it as a form of audio transmission, with research focusing on acoustic- to microwave-frequency signal modulation. The fact that it's beaming audio into someone's head doesn't make it a paranormal phenomenon any more than bone conduction, already widely used in audio transmission applications, would be. ––Agyle (talk) 22:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * That'll be because I removed all the conspiracy theorist nonsense from psychotronics that is now appearing in this article, using many of the same sources that are in the psychotronics article. It is a term used by some to mean any electronic, psychological, "weapon at a distance": eg, voice to skull. There's the relation. GDallimore (Talk) 11:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Microwave auditory effect or Microwave auditory effect. Some of the conspiracy theorist stuff appears strongly referenced enough to go in the MAE article and I have copied it across, so a redirect would probably be the best long term option. GDallimore (Talk) 10:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also: Delete V2K. GDallimore (Talk) 21:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I reordered, rewrote, and cut significant parts of the article, dividing the definition and reality-based research of the technology from the delusional conspiracy theorist claims of government mind control. As far as I can tell, nobody is doubting that audio/voices can be projected inside people's heads using microwaves, as that was done in the 1960s, and was well understood and covered in scientific journals by the 1970s (see MAE). I'm not sure if the complaints about WP:SYNTHESIS referred to the juxtaposition of delusional accounts of individuals with legitimate military research, or if it's that there's some doubt that the different weaponized uses of the microwave auditory effect (MAE) should legitimately fall under the term “voice to skull”. As I see it, MAE is microwave audio, V2K is weaponized MAE, and it's a simple topic. But the army's V2K definition simply described weaponized MAE, rather than using the term itself, which for some people may raise doubts of original research when discussing other weaponized MAE research as a form of V2K. I honestly think that view is due to a poor grasp of the science, but that's just my opinion. I've worked as a computer engineer for the last three decades, and have worked on a few high-frequency PCM transmission devices (nothing military), so the technology seems mundane, while to a layperson it could seem futuristic or confusing. At any rate, if the consensus continues to point toward deletion, most of the content aside from the conspiracy theory section would uncontroversially fit within the MAE article, just by dropping the umbrella term “voice to skull”. ––Agyle (talk) 06:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's definitely OR to so blatantly link voice to skull with MAE without a reliable source suggesting the link directly. This is exactly what some of these very sick people do: they find a real-world technology that they think can explain the fact that their hearing voices, and it gets thrown into a melting pot with all other sort of paranoia fueling ideas (eg psychotronics) in an effort to give those ideas validity. The worst thing we can do as wikipedia editors is to fall for the deception that the idea of voice to skull as a weapon is actually connected with MAE just because they look a little similar and some unreliable sources insist that they are connected and are part of a secret government mind control program. Ultimately, the reliable sources talking about MAE cannot support the notability of "voice to skull".
 * Definition of MAE: using pulses of microwave energy to transmit an audio effect inside a person or animal's head. Definition of V2K: a device using pulses of microwave energy to transmit an audio effect inside a person or animal's head. It isn't a stretch to relate the two, and I wouldn't characterize it as a deception, but I see your point that a reliable source should do so explicitly. I only found one book that explicitly equated the Navy's MAE-based MEDUSA with V2K, though it's not a great source, and the infrequent usage of "voice to skull" in publications does indicate a lack of notability for the term. ––Agyle (talk) 16:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm currently deciding if there's anything in this article worth merging to MAE... GDallimore (Talk) 11:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * A quick review of MAE and Voice to Skull suggests that there's nothing in voice to skull which isn't already in MAE. Also, the relevant reliable sources (apart from the Wash Po article) don't mention voice to skull. In fact, the Wash Po article says quite plainly: "The thing that's missing from his bag is even a single document that would buttress the implausible notion that the government is currently targeting a large group of American citizens with mind-control technology" - which would suggest a severe lack of reliable sources! So, I still say delete, and delete V2K. GDallimore (Talk) 11:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have removed the most blatant OR. Note that the first two sources, although mentioning voice to skull, don't actually discuss the topic. They just discuss the removal of articles ABOUT the topic from army websites. This cannot support notability. GDallimore (Talk) 12:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup - and the thesaurus entry has to be about the least useful 'reliable source' I've seen. It can be reasonably verified that the entry existed in the thesaurus, and the wording can be verified - but basing anything whatsoever on the entry can only be WP:OR. No context. No indication of what the scope of the thesaurus was. No indication as to whether the thesaurus had any official sanction. No indication of anything really, beyond the fact that a thesaurus on a U.S. military website once had an entry on 'Voice to skull'. Which was deleted, for reasons unknown. Though I'm sure the tinfoil-hat brigade will be able to come up with plenty of 'explanations'. None of which are the slightest bit relevant to Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete outright, this title needs to be gone, but there may be components that can be merged into Psychotronics but not from the currently deficent article. Hasteur (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Six Days !! This has been notified here for six days !!!  How many Admins are there at WP. I saw the figure 1,500 somewhere. They should hand in their official WP:ADMINTROUSERS and ID cards and we should get a new batch.  Why is there still an article?  --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:10, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From WP:AFD: “Sometime after seven days has passed, someone will either close the discussion or, where needed, "relist" it for another seven days of discussion.” ––Agyle (talk) 15:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Roxy, standard AFD policy is to wait seven days before closing. AFD requests are only closed sooner than that if there is indisputable consensus, or if special reasons exist. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. Woke up and this was still on my watchlist, and I thought I'd vent a little.  Felt good.  Didn't realise the guys wearing admintrousers are obliged to wait a week. Not one minute more though.  ;) --Roxy the dog (resonate) 17:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * See There is no deadline. Seven days is just the normal period. Yes, there are situations where we want to nuke something faster than that, but they are all listed at Criteria for speedy deletion. We do, however, regularly extend deletion discussions to 14 or 21 days if it looks like the extra time will make the consensus clearer.
 * I am genuinely curious as to why you feel that we must hurry in this case. People take vacation, get sick, are temporarily overloaded with work, etc. Why should their opinions be ignored? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2014 (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.