Talk:Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory - Revision history

Scienca at 01:52, 11 October 2006

2006-10-11T01:52:40Z

Scienca at 01:49, 11 October 2006

2006-10-11T01:49:55Z

Scienca at 01:40, 11 October 2006

2006-10-11T01:40:49Z

Scienca at 01:40, 11 October 2006

2006-10-11T01:40:07Z

Scienca at 01:38, 11 October 2006

2006-10-11T01:38:47Z

New page

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 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.

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

'''Update''' The creator's apparent vanity piece has also been nominated for deletion, [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Huping_Hu|here]]. [[User:Byrgenwulf|Byrgenwulf]] 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' as a violation of all the policies mentioned in the nomination. I suspect this article violates [[WP:VAIN]] as well: it was created by an IP, {{user|24.185.23.19}}, who also edited [[New York Law School]] last April. According to [[Huping Hu]] (the article on the inventor of this "theory"), Hu attended that school in the 1990s. [[User:Anville|Anville]] 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom and Anville. Note that this was deleted in November 2004, which looks to be before the deletion log started, but see [[Special:Undelete/Spin-Mediated_Consciousness_Theory]] and [[Wikipedia:Requests for investigation/Archives/2004/11#70.19.54.226|request for investigation]] about the same IP. I've left a note for [[user:Ancheta Wis]], who seems to be the one requesting deletion back then and appears to still be active. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 19:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
**Good detective work. The first link you posted only works for admins, it appears, but the discovery is nonetheless interesting. [[User:Anville|Anville]] 19:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
***Yes, Special:Undelete is an admin-only page. I should have noted that, sorry. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
**From the [[Wikipedia:Deletion log|old manual deletion log]]:
***15:16, 26 Nov 2004 [[User:DropDeadGorgias|DropDeadGorgias]] deleted [[:Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory]]
** [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] 20:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Tempshill|Tempshill]] 20:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom, especially [[WP:BOLLOCKS]]. --[[User:Pjacobi|Pjacobi]] 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per Huping Hu. This piece was initially written by me when Wikipedia was in its infant stage back in 2004 as a way to introduce our [[Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory]] because someone cited our [[Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory]] in the [[Consciousness]] and, I believe, [[quantum mind]] entry. Please be advised that [[User:Anville|Anville]]'s statement with respect to spamming is factually false and, upon information and belief, libelous. Our [[Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory]] speaks for itself and if it was added or edited within [[quantum mind]] and [[spin]] the purpose was related to relevancy not vanity. May GOD bless Wikipedia and its participants so that it may stay useful, innovative, diverse and informative. {{unsigned|72.89.197.56}}
: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 {{user|72.89.197.56}}, please review [[WP:NLT]] and note that making legal threats in the Wikipedia is gravely frowned upon.---[[User:Hillman|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]]. ---[[User:Hillman|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 [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=neuroquantology 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. [[User:Anville|Anville]] 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' No evidence of notability.[[User:Edison|Edison]] 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per above. [[User:Linas|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! {{unsigned|68.81.66.41}} {{spa|68.81.66.41}}

*'''Delete''' No evidence of notability; the theory is a [[WP:BOLLOCKS|bollocks]]-ridden [[WP:FT|fringe theory]] whose main claim to fame is appearing in this Wikipedia article. [[User:John Baez|John Baez]] 04:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 *'''Delete''' No evidence of notability; the theory is a [[WP:BOLLOCKS|bollocks]]-ridden [[WP:FT|fringe theory]] whose main claim to fame is appearing in this Wikipedia article. [[User:John Baez|John Baez]] 04:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-Discussion on Wikipeida as of October 10, 2006:
+Discussion on Wikipedia as of October 10, 2006:
 Woudn't VfD be more apropriate than Speedy? Unless this is a copyvio, does anybody have a link? [[User:Sander123|Sander123]] 15:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:49, 11 October 2006
Line 28:		Line 28:

	*'''Delete''' No evidence of notability; the theory is a [[WP:BOLLOCKS\|bollocks]]-ridden [[WP:FT\|fringe theory]] whose main claim to fame is appearing in this Wikipedia article. [[User:John Baez\|John Baez]] 04:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)		*'''Delete''' No evidence of notability; the theory is a [[WP:BOLLOCKS\|bollocks]]-ridden [[WP:FT\|fringe theory]] whose main claim to fame is appearing in this Wikipedia article. [[User:John Baez\|John Baez]] 04:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	Discussion on Wikipeida as of October 10, 2006:
		+
		+	Woudn't VfD be more apropriate than Speedy? Unless this is a copyvio, does anybody have a link? [[User:Sander123\|Sander123]] 15:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
		+
		+	Looks to me like a random crackpot theory. Though by what sounds like a real scientist. Should probably be left up but with a warning - tentative random ramblings of a biologist, don't give any serious belief to.
		+
		+	This is idiocy. What difference does it make if it is "random" or whether or not you agree with it? Somebody proposed it, so it exists. Wikipedia is simply a record of knowledge, and part of that knowledge concerns what is proposed by people as theories, whether or not some people consider them to be "crackpot" or not. Why don't you delete the article on phlogiston then, or on Ptolemaic astronomy, or anything else that turned out to be utter non-sense? (and, no, I am not saying this particular theory is utter non-sense). Pretending it doesn't exist does not make it go away. Tag removed.[[User:Sayfadeen\|Sayfadeen]]
		+
		+	:Wikipedia is not a record of every crackpot theory. See the [[WP:NOR]] policy. [[User:Tempshill\|Tempshill]] 20:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
		+
		+	Touche. So why not just say: "This violates the NOR policy" rather than "This is a crack-pot theory." The first is a valid reason for deletion, the second is just baiting and insult. [[User:Sayfadeen\|Sayfadeen]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:40, 11 October 2006
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	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 item was rescued from Wikipedia on October 10, 2006. 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.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:40, 11 October 2006
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.