- Technical Psychotronics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
quoted scientific references on experimental results on animals, including primates , as well as outline of technology principles should give enough information to anyone with technical or scientific background, and neutral to novelties, that the presence of the article in question is perfectly justified. Instead , the deletion process reflects obvious non-scientific bias of the deletor(s) invoking "conspiracy theories" where pure reason should be applied. Archibald751 (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. The deletion discussion appears to have focused on Wikipedia policy, and the close properly represents consensus. No objection if this is restored to draft space, but this does not belong in article mainspace, per the consensus at the AfD. —C.Fred (talk) 03:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I reviewed the sourcing in the original article and found the scientific references were being misrepresented, i.e. there was no mention of technical psychotronics, blank carrier waves, or technology "discontinued in civilian science". FYI, the same material was also inserted into another article by an IP [1]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 04:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment User LuckyLouie makes 4 edits per day on Wikipedia since 13 years, total over 20 thousand edits , which implies he is a paid editor. As such, his remarks are not an objective scientific input in public interest, and should not be taken into regard with respect to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archibald751 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- What absolute nonsense. Reyk YO! 13:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Balderdash. I have an average of something over 8 edits per day since 2005. Does that make me a paid editor also? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Try not to get baited by a user whose first non-reverted edits were to this very deletion review forum. SportingFlyer T·C 01:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse as a valid closure. But the comment by User:Archibald751 on User:LuckyLouie looks like a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the AfD was lightly attended, but with clear consensus, and given the discussion of POVFORK should not be restored at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 08:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- (Statement by closing admin) While lightly attended, the AFD in my opinion had sufficient consensus to justify a delete close, and the arguments posted here for overturning aren't convincing. Ad hominem are seldom valid reasons for disregarding opinions in an AFD and I see no reason to make an exception here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse- consensus at the AfD was pretty clear. There is no reason to overturn this. Reyk YO! 13:21, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Logical delete remarks citing policy. I find it difficult to consider a consensus that ran one week, and had low participation (2 !voters). The listing might have benefited from a relist. It is also difficult at deletion review because we do not have the benefit of seeing the original article. I find myself looking for mirror sites like this, so I can see if the article merits incubation, or is nonsense. Lightburst (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Normally, I'd have some sympathy for the argument that with only three participants, anybody asking for a relist should be humored. I generally think, "Had this comment been in the AfD, would it have changed the way I closed it?" For a low-attendance discussion, that usually leads me to think a relist is fair. In this case, however, the article was such a pile of dung, there's no chance further discussion would have resulted in any other result, so a relist would be an unconscionable waste of time. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Consensus in the AfD was clear, and I would have joined it had I participated. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse based on the AfD and the first sentence of the deleted article: "A scientific term being combination of psyche- and electronics was first proposed in France to describe new technologies of thought-reading and transmitting with electronics means." So, complete bollocks, but apparently not notable bollocks. Guy (help!) 17:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse the article claimed that for decades there has been classified research into people controlling computers with their minds using radio waves, and that this now has enormous commercial applications ("since end of the nineties the technology is increasingly used in commerce, banking, administration"). There is no way in hell we are going to have an article which says this. "Conspiracy theories" is an accurate reflection of what the article actually said, it asserted that "There are coordinated efforts by the users to keep it hidden from public view as long as possible" and that there is very little information about it because it has been classified. To the extent that this is a real topic it can be covered at Brain–computer interface. Hut 8.5 21:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
