Talk:Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory

From sciXplorer
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
This item was rescued from Wikipedia on October 10, 2006 before deletion. The reason for deletion was as follows according to Wikipedia's deletion discussion page:
+
This item was rescued from Wikipedia on October 10, 2006 before deletion. According to Wikipedia's deletion discussion page, the reasons for vote of deletion were as follows:
  
 
This is a [[WP:BOLLOCKS|bollocks]]-ridden "[[WP:FT|fringe theory]]".  It has not been published in any [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] — both journals from which the article is sourced are decidedly cranky (''Medical Hypotheses'' particularly: they will publish anything, quite literally, as long as the author pays per page [http://www.elsevier-international.com/journals/mehy/]).  It also fails [[WP:NOT|notability]] policies, since no real assertion of notability is made.  And it arguably is [[WP:OR|original research]] as well.  Moreover, Wikipedia does not need to be a platform for the promotion of utterly misleading drivel.  
 
This is a [[WP:BOLLOCKS|bollocks]]-ridden "[[WP:FT|fringe theory]]".  It has not been published in any [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] — both journals from which the article is sourced are decidedly cranky (''Medical Hypotheses'' particularly: they will publish anything, quite literally, as long as the author pays per page [http://www.elsevier-international.com/journals/mehy/]).  It also fails [[WP:NOT|notability]] policies, since no real assertion of notability is made.  And it arguably is [[WP:OR|original research]] as well.  Moreover, Wikipedia does not need to be a platform for the promotion of utterly misleading drivel.  

Revision as of 01:40, 11 October 2006

This item was rescued from Wikipedia on October 10, 2006 before deletion. According to Wikipedia's deletion discussion page, the reasons for vote of deletion were as follows:

This is a bollocks-ridden "fringe theory". It has not been published in any reliable sources — both journals from which the article is sourced are decidedly cranky (Medical Hypotheses particularly: they will publish anything, quite literally, as long as the author pays per page [1]). It also fails notability policies, since no real assertion of notability is made. And it arguably is original research as well. Moreover, Wikipedia does not need to be a platform for the promotion of utterly misleading drivel.

Was prodded yesterday by someone else, but the tag was removed by an IP/anon with no explanation.Byrgenwulf 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Update The creator's apparent vanity piece has also been nominated for deletion, here. Byrgenwulf 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you are claiming that you are Huping Hu and also that you are the author of the two articles. Is that correct? If so I add WP:NPOV to my vote. And Template:User, please review WP:NLT and note that making legal threats in the Wikipedia is gravely frowned upon.---CH 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:BOLLOCKS. This article reads like pure pseudoscientific newagery; there is a bit about (poorly described) physical background but no indication of how spin states are supposed to generate conciouness, so the article completely fails in its mission of even describing the alleged "theory". NeuroQuantology?!! Is this yet another crankjournal? Sheesh! Can we consolidate this AfD with the biography? I agree with User:Anville that even a cursory examination raises the issue of WP:VAIN. ---CH 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
We had an article on NeuroQuantology at some point, but it met a justly deserved fate (PRODed, I believe, not AfD). A Google Scholar search on that journal was quite illuminating, as was a perusal of its website. . . but that's not really a topic germane to this discussion. Anville 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete No evidence of notability.Edison 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. linas 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep!* No current theory of consciousness will be the correct one. Or even close to the correct one. They will all verge on scientism. But, based upon this article in Wikipedia, this Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory (SMCT) looks like the best one we've got so far. Please don't discourage serious attempts at the hard problem of consciousness by immediately deleting every theory which is proposed! Template:Spa
  • Delete No evidence of notability; the theory is a bollocks-ridden fringe theory whose main claim to fame is appearing in this Wikipedia article. John Baez 04:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Tools