Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noetic positivism: Difference between revisions
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
The article doesn't even explain anything; even if there was something interesting in the references, the article itself is gobledygook. To editorialize a bit: it looks like this is just someone's weird pet theory of something (or everything? The reader can't even tell that much) constructed out of confusedly tossing together a bunch of technical terms in a way that makes no sense.[[Special:Contributions/134.29.178.146|134.29.178.146]] ([[User talk:134.29.178.146|talk]]) 18:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |
The article doesn't even explain anything; even if there was something interesting in the references, the article itself is gobledygook. To editorialize a bit: it looks like this is just someone's weird pet theory of something (or everything? The reader can't even tell that much) constructed out of confusedly tossing together a bunch of technical terms in a way that makes no sense.[[Special:Contributions/134.29.178.146|134.29.178.146]] ([[User talk:134.29.178.146|talk]]) 18:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''' As the article says, a brand-new theory. I can decipher what is intended, but there is no possible notability '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 03:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''' As the article says, a brand-new theory. I can decipher what is intended, but there is no possible notability '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 03:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC) |
||
"The Sigma Passion" by Vlad K. Once 2010 http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Sigma-Passion-Power/dp/0956395171/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339056458&sr=8-1 |
|||
"The Sigma Passion" by Vlad K. Once 2011 http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Passion-Noetic-Positivism-ebook/dp/B00669E8A2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339056627&sr=8-1 |
|||
"The Sigma Passion" by Vlad K. Once 2012 http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Passion-Noetic-Positivism-ebook/dp/B006ASJE6M/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1339056664&sr=8-3 |
|||
'ETHICS' (academic essay) http://noeticpositivism.blogspot.com/2011/03/ethics-article-guardian-refused-to.html |
|||
[[User:Noeticpositivism|Noeticpositivism]] ([[User talk:Noeticpositivism|talk]]) 08:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 08:14, 7 June 2012
- Noetic positivism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This does not appear to be notable, and has no references from reliable sources. Google finds only the self-published books that are the subject of the article and a lot of related social media links Mcewan (talk)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mcewan (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
The article doesn't even explain anything; even if there was something interesting in the references, the article itself is gobledygook. To editorialize a bit: it looks like this is just someone's weird pet theory of something (or everything? The reader can't even tell that much) constructed out of confusedly tossing together a bunch of technical terms in a way that makes no sense.134.29.178.146 (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
- Delete As the article says, a brand-new theory. I can decipher what is intended, but there is no possible notability DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
"The Sigma Passion" by Vlad K. Once 2010 http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Sigma-Passion-Power/dp/0956395171/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339056458&sr=8-1 "The Sigma Passion" by Vlad K. Once 2011 http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Passion-Noetic-Positivism-ebook/dp/B00669E8A2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339056627&sr=8-1 "The Sigma Passion" by Vlad K. Once 2012 http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Passion-Noetic-Positivism-ebook/dp/B006ASJE6M/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1339056664&sr=8-3 'ETHICS' (academic essay) http://noeticpositivism.blogspot.com/2011/03/ethics-article-guardian-refused-to.html Noeticpositivism (talk) 08:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)