Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural Human Science

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 speedy delete per copyvio and spam concerns. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Human Science

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

I used a proposed deletion tag, but it was removed by the article creator. This article does not appear to meet any of the speedy deletion criteria (although one could make an argument that 'patent nonsense' could apply), so I bring it here to AfD. On my prod I said " Wikipedia already has an article on Astral projection, but a redirect seems unnecessary, since people will not be likely to search for that subject under this title," and I don't really have very much to add to that statement. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not in the WP spirit at all. Not cited, not objective, and probably copied from something else. Kitfoxxe (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsense. Reywas92^Talk 17:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant content into the talk page of Charles Tart for sourcing and wikification. K2709 (talk) 19:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have been willing to speedy delete as promotion, but since this AfD is here we may as well let it run its course. It is also rather nonsense, though I agree with FisherQueen not quite enough for speedy deletion on those grounds. There is nothing at all about this article which is remotely suitable for an encyclopedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and yes, some copyvio issues, see this for the CIA data. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and all of the comments above. みんな空の下 (トーク) 03:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Copyvio of e.g. [1] (2007) and blatant advert which would require a fundamental rewrite to become encyclopaedic. Chzz ► 12:25, 6 September 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.