Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consciousness Quotient

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. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consciousness Quotient

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

Non-notable theory, presentation more than slightly promotional of the author's work. Currently an exact copy of a paper presented by the page creator, deleted as a copyvio and restored after license permission received via WP:OTRS. All citations currently in the article are to the author's own work, apparently presentations of this same paper or a similar one. The conference at which this was presented does not appear to constitute peer-reviewed publication. A search on '"Consciousness Quotient" Brazdau' found no hits on Google Scholar or Google news, and the only hits on Google web were to versions of this paper, presentations of it by this author, or pages posted by this author, no independent uses at all, let alone reliable sources. As per WP:FRINGE the theory of a single author, with no wider support, and no relevant outside discussion, is not notable. Fails the general notability guideline and does not meet WP:N. DES ^(talk) 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per my own nomination. DES ^(talk) 23:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom, basically a non-notable theory comprising WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Glenfarclas (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically it isn't WP:OR in the Wikipedia sense. The theory has been published elsewhere, and that publication cited. It is fine to report here original research first published elsewhere, provided that it is notable and not given undue weight. Similarly, outside sources may (and often should) engage in synthesis and we report the results here. If there was significant secondary discussion of this theory -- even if it was all in opposition to the theory -- it might well be notable enough for inclusion. In such a case WP:OR and WP:SYNTH would not be valid grounds for deletion. But so far there is no evidence that anyone beyond the author has paid attention to this theory, so it is not notable enough for inclusion here. DES ^(talk) 00:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I had hoped that by tagging this for copyvio I could just make it go away quietly, but here we are. Now, I suppose what you say is true in the strict sense. However, since the author of this article (User:OvidiuBrazdau) was (evidently) also the copyright holder of the source material in question, as far as I can tell all he's done is put his original research on a website (OvidiuBrazdau.com), and then copy it here. In my view, copying someone else's original research published elsewhere onto WP doesn't violate WP:OR, but copying your own original research most likely does. WP:OR is largely pointless if it can be obviated by sticking the same content onto Wikinfo or, you know, Crapcyclopedia or whatever. Obviously, if your research appeared in Science or Cell it's a different story, but in a case such as this one I feel comfortable with the position that this contavenes WP:OR. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~and a big trout slap to the article creator for gaming the system~~. yes, its not OR, or copyvio, but it obviously doesnt belong here without significant mention in reliable third party sources.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Every change in the conscious experience can be described in terms of information. ... "Some of us have a larger level of consciousness, described by a higher CQ, that is: they can access plenty of information. Some of us have a lower CQ, and can access less information. And of course, areas where we can access information can differ in different states, but overall, the general CQ is the same. In some moments we are more conscious about our feelings, but less of our thoughts or our own being". Not only original research, a one man theory, but that other thing as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:17, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your opinions, the theory is a brand new one (altough is under development since 2002, but only now it was finalized, and is currently under publication in a ISI Web of Knowledge indexed publication). Yet, one of the goals of Wiki is to be a encyclopedia, and as I now, an encyclopedia can include new theories and researches, which are in the process of development.

As it is well noted here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_demolish_the_house_while_it%27s_still_being_built.

So, I propose to leave a note saying this article needs additional information, rather that delete it. Let the house to be builded. I am sure in the next months more references will become available. Is is too soon to search for Consciousness Quotient on Google Scholar. Regarding the reviewing: the first step was done at The Science of Consciousness Conference 2009: the conference had a program committee and only 200 papers from 300 were selected by the committee. See the list of the committee at http://www.asiaconsciousness.org/TSC/committee.html.

Ovidiu Brazdau [21:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)]

Delete see WP:GNG. All the references I can find are either not external or are very marginal - conference listings, etc. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2010 (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.