Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrasomatic 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 Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intrasomatic model[edit]

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

Fringe theory with no footprint at all. I get two GHits on the phrase and one GBook hits, and the latter duplicates one of the former. Mangoe (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the theory is robust, solid, and noteworthy. How can something be fringe when it weaves together many solid and renowned theories? It is of import to those interested in Near Death and Out of Body experience. Its author is a professional member of the Medical and Scientific Network and the International Association of Near Death Studies. He has authored 6 books with another 2 pending publication (Arcturus Publishing and Watkins Books, London). He has been verified by such as Colin Wilson and Bruce Greyson. I really would like clarification as to what the problem is, as I consult Wikipedia all the time, and know this theory has nothing untoward which would preclude it being detailed here. Tutweiler (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope inclusion in Wikipedia would be based on how worthy and relevant a theory is, and not its popularity. "Hits" really only reveal how well-known something is, and I was including it so it might become more known. Tutweiler (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is notability; there is a lack of secondary interest in the theory. Wikipedia does not exist to publicize novel theories, no matter how good they are. If the theory attracts attention from others, who comment on it positively or negatively, then an article can be justified. But until then, we are not the place to document it. Mangoe (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's one man's mumbo-jumbo. Delete. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Mumbo jumbo" to whom? Issuing from serious and meticulous research? Based on empirical data? If this be mumbo jumbo, delete, and speedily. No talk will save it in the midst of this type of reasoning. Tutweiler (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC) I meant in terms of allowing others to reference it. Go ahead and delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tutweiler (talk • contribs) 15:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'mumbo jumbo' is slang for original research, which is not the point of en.wikipedia. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether Alexbrn agrees with that. Nonetheless, at least one person (you) does, so it should be addressed. Are you claiming that this should be deleted under WP:DEL#REASON number 6? All the other delete votes appear to say that it should be deleted under WP:DEL#REASON number 7 or 8. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It will be deleted while many irrelevant things stand. It seems arbitrary; but please delete speedily. Tutweiler (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFF for an explanation as to why the above is a bad argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I hadn't been drawn into that kind of argument: I was only responding in kind to those who called it mumbo jumbo. Why not simply cite for not enough secondary sources and be done with it? It was the posters who drew me into an argument about the merits of the theory, which I now see are irrelevant.Tutweiler (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler (talk) 23:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The key here is that, for the purposes of this page, whether or not it is "Mumbo Jumbo" is irrelevant. Your best answer would have been to ask him "where in WP:DEL#REASON is 'being Mumbo Jumbo' listed?", thus guiding the conversation away from personal opinion and toward Wikipedia's deletion policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has been largely covered above while I was researching: it's a non-notable theory. Most of the small number of Google hits are to Wikipedia, though there are a few mentions on fringe science and sceptic sites. As mentioned above, Google Books doesn't have anything useful. I don't think Anthony Peake is notable either, based on my research, though if his theory has really been verified in print by other people, maybe he is. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without comment as to the validity of the theory, the subject is simply not notable enough for inclusion. I searched newspaper and magazine archives for the theory and book by the author, and found nothing that covered the subject in any depth. - Mr X 15:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without comment as to the validity of the theory, the subject is simply not notable enough for inclusion. I searched newspaper and magazine archives for the theory and book by the author, and found nothing that covered the subject in any depth. (yeap) --Smkolins (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is the lack of citations of secondary sources, then. Good enough. I agree, delete. Tutweiler (talk) 16:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)TutweilerTutweiler[reply]
Delete Not notable to have an article to itself, delete. Fodor Fan (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I too, could not find in-depth secondary reliable sources. for this topic. The theory and book are already discussed at Near-death experience#Intrasomatic Model Theory with what seems like due weight, as the theory is verifiable from the book, but not notable. I think a redirect to that section would help those looking for this information. --Mark viking (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Lack of notability is not the only reason that an article could end up at AfD. In this case, a bigger concern is that the lack of independent sources makes it impossible to write a neutral article. bobrayner (talk) 19:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW Delete Do not redirect, same fringe theory there too. Those find sources links come up with a lot of white blank pages. Mkdw ^talk 05:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources seem to be making the case that this is a significant hypothesis. It appears to be little more than one man's hobby-horse. --Salimfadhley (talk) 00:53, 11 February 2013 (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.