Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synaptic model

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. With no prejudice to creation of a comprehensible article on the topic which may be notable. Sam Walton (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Synaptic model

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is nonsense, isn't it? Speedy was declined, but... try reading it! I'm pretty sure it doesn't make sense in English, even in scientific/psychology circles. No real references, no context! Stephenb (Talk) 12:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's written from a hollistic point of view --Cristi215 (talk) 12:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Holistic point of view" or not, it fails as an encyclopedia article, as I'm none the wiser having read it. Damned if I know what the subject really is and the bluelinks go nowhere useful. Jargon is not a substitute for straightforward explanation to a general audience. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is poorly written, but the concept is real and published in philosophy. I did a quick search because this theory also seemed similar to a plot point of my favorite book, Anathem, which does base the fiction on real (if strange) philosophiCal theories of mind and quantum states. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 12:37, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The title is potentially a subject for an article, perhaps. The content is nonsense, however. I believe other recent edits by this user demonstrate this, too Stephenb (Talk) 14:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any usable content or any prospect that any usable content will show up. Looie496 (talk) 20:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While this is a real term, this article has nothing to do with it. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 03:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.