Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Level 7 sound experiment

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. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Level 7 sound experiment

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

Does not appear notable, may be a hoax (although the creator appears to have authored the article in good faith). Google Books, News, and News archives hits for "level 7" sound experiment appear to be false positives, while searching the same venues with the term "level 7 sound experiment" turns up nothing. Article creator has himself admitted that he can find no mention of this supposed experiment on the internet. Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 15:14, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if this incident is true (which from the looks of it, it may very well not be), there are no sources to be found to support any of the claims here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ all sourced details (presently, nothing) to sonic weapon. (Actually, out and out Delete - nobody but Wikipedia is using this name for it, and "level 7" for 7 Hz is not a normal equivalence) Author should note that so far, it appears all these 7 Hz stories date back to a Bill Burroughs quote I've added, for now, to Vladimir Gavreau. (That article is troubled, but Gavreau has published work, and Burroughs and the decades of subsequent storytelling about Gavreau is very notable - it could be saved) Burroughs was a master of both reality and fantasy... he cites a Sunday Times article, April 16, 1967, "Acoustics," by Frank Dorsey, under the title "Joshua Knew a Thing or Two", and an unspecified pre-1968 French patent by Gavreau. The former could probably be found at [1], by a subscriber; the latter ... I don't know how to find it; it's not on Patent Lens, but I don't know if it would be. Wnt (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverified (and, for the record, extremely dubious).Snow (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, extremely dubious, etc. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 23:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Reads like a retelling of an urban legend. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2012 (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.