Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cosmic Intelligence
- 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 cosmic delete. --Coredesat 00:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cosmic Intelligence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- I originally nominated this article for speedy deletion, based on the fact that it was basically nonsensical, but have since gotten a second opinion and decided to go for a normal AFD. This articles was also PROD'd by another editor, but the notice was removed anonymously without comment.
- This article is a barely coherent essay, does not cite any sources, and is by and large unintelligible. It also appears to consist of 100% original research, and fails to attribute any of its sources or claims. Furthermore, it is not clear that the topic discussed herein has any relationship to a "cosmic intelligence" and is entirely speculation. Fails WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:ATT, and WP:OR, and should be deleted.
- Note, however, that I am not contending that an article about "Cosmic Intelligence" is inherently non-notable, or impossible to produce. I am nominating this particular article because it is incoherent - presumably in the future, one could produce a reasonable, encyclopedic article about this topic. This is not it. Haemo 07:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete One of the more bizzare articles I've seen on AfD. Normally I think bad articles should not be deleted because they are bad, but this one is so bad that I can't evaluate it for any of the normal standards. Could this be speedied for context (A1)? --Selket Talk 07:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't know, but my previous speedy attempt was also contested, right before I pulled it, so I don't think it would help in any case. --Haemo 08:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- BJAODN...that is, delete this wackiness. WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:A, take your pick. -- Scientizzle 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Complete nonsense. It sure is original but I don't know whether I could describe it as "research". Jimp 08:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, nonsensical: "Credit goes to the NASA for spotting all these formations in the sky and naming them." Uhh.... Zetawoof(ζ) 11:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It hurts my head to read this. Natalie 14:56, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Complete nonsense Chrislintott 16:29, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm still struggling with the concept of a bird's eye view of the universe... EliminatorJR Talk 19:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a really gigantic bird, I guess. Zetawoof(ζ) 19:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nonsense and as essay--I am reluctant to call it "research"-- Article claims that the term is "popular in the new age community" without documenting it. DGG 19:27, 8 March 2007 (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.