Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noetic positivism

Noetic positivism

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)

..One can even argue with Eternity if there’s a weighty pretext, substantial argument, and resources of the required level… "The Sigma Passion" a science novel by Vlad K. Once

Excellent idea(considered for deletion). I would also suggest checking up the following articles "Noetic psychology", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic theory", for compliance with scientific (common) sense according to the following criteria;

1. Subject matter of

2. Object of research

3. Target, methods etc.

If answers to these simple questions are not found, then let at least a basic explanation (definition)of what these sciences mean be presented to the world. And of course my “best wishes” to all moderators of the following articles "Noetic psychology" and "Noetic sciences". Looking forward to hearing explanations from them, why these quasi-sciences which do not have got any above mentioned criteria (1,2,3) can delude the readers of the Wikipedia? I think that having answered this question we will be able to understand why there are so many people willing to delete an article about a real new science - Noetic positivism. Or if The Times or the Nature haven’t written about something then this something does not exist in the world, does it? Let me share a "little secret" - the editorial staff of these journals is the same people like you who search for internet links etc… And the ones like me develop science..

As for Noetic concept it’s in this exact way (but not as it is written in the following articles ("Noetic psychology", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic theory") was this term used by Husserl in his writings on phenomenology.

What you call - gobledygook - is an academic (in its keenest meaning) form for presentation of a scientific theory. (But if you had the respective education, you would surely know about it)

I would like to comment about one thing (solely for the article on Noetic positivism) for the future. This article may only be removed by someone who can scientifically prove that the formula for passion is wrong. Otherwise (deciding to remove the article) and keeping the following articles "Noetic psychology", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic theory", - you show either incompetence or personal concern/involvement...

Best wishes..

"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) 08:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

For those who try to use the Act 1R (Articles with a single source) I hope that everyone present here understands that the research level of Noetic positivism - is possible only thanks to writings of such great people like René Descartes, Edmund Husserl, Auguste Comte, Immanuel Kant, Max Planck and others, and I am just one of those few who try to follow their hard path of knowledge…

аnd you have to decide yourselves who you follow

And last but not least - this article about Noetic positivism does not end here yet...

Noeticpositivism (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You and the theory may well be correct but unfortunately, until this is recognised elsewhere, it does not belong in Wikipedia. As I said on your talk page, the single best thing that you could do to improve the chances of the article being kept is to find references in reliable sources for the subject in order to demonstrate that it is notable, not original research and not from a single source. I did try to find such references, but couldn't. Mcewan (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. But if you were more attentive you could see that various publishing houses had published my writings… And believe me; they used to tell Husserl the same things about phenomenology (or even worse). By the way, if I understand you correctly then you have found the basis for "Noetic sciences" in Dan Brown’s work, and how can it be otherwise with the articles "Noetic theory", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute" not being deleted yet? Frankly speaking, as with a colleague, you can delete my article (the research will never stop with it), but then you MUST delete quack articles on "Noetic psychology", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic theory" from Wikipedia as well. Thank you for your attention spent on Noetic positivism. and by the way, the Top-level domains "noeticpositivism" nevertheless belong to me.

Regards

Noeticpositivism (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)