Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phenomena of pyramid

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 JoshuaZ 20:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phenomena of pyramid

Unprovable theory, no references, no citations, fringe theory, 100% original research, incomprehensible Accounting4Taste 16:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, original New Age moonbeam theory, no reliable sources. NawlinWiki 16:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreadable - non-referenced original research by inference. MarkBul 18:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Promotional, copyright violation. The material is from a website that the article creator has been spamming. Most likely there's a conflict of interest. --Ronz 19:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional OR. Might also be worth considering a salting, as the user has placed similar spam material on other articles, article talk pages, and their user page, and despite having read and removed some of the warnings about doing it, continues to do so. This particular article (in less completed and coherent forms) has been speedied twice already. -- Shadowlynk (Talk) 20:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is completely incomprehensible. Probable WP:OR and does not seem to have been discussed by reliable sources, though it's hard to tell what to search for. "Phenomena of pyramid" maybe misphrased, but yields only one google hit - The Feng Shui Chi Generator™. Hardly a reliable source... --TreeKittens 21:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What's he smoking? Can I have some? WP:OR. WP:BOLLOCKS. Pete Fenelon 00:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete nuff said -- Diletante 19:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete incomprehensible nonsense. Thought I was over BJAODN, but this make me a little misty. Gandalf61 21:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ALL THANKS FOR DISCUSSION.
By the first results of discussion of other participants I have understood, what first of all many the question commercial interests it is the project or not? Advertising it or self-advertisement? If to estimate those expenses, that I have enclosed in this research the question on commerce can to be put. It was easier to organize advertising or to choose other field of activity.
I believe, that the material should be presented to encyclopaedias in another way than on site pages, by rules wiki, but has not had time to process available material. In my opinion, many break such principle of giving of a material, as all-round and weighed. This principle allows another, having other sight, to state it on pages and to help everyone, most to learn to choose.
Some participants wish to see references to authoritative scientific sources. I have passed good school of work in the scientific environment, therefore I can inform, that in sphere of a science it is not less unfair researchers, than in other areas. The science basically cannot do without commerce and a policy. In history of a science it is enough examples Really you wish to become such inquisitors on pages википедии? Certainly, it was promoted by my errors in a statement and material giving. But let's not to confuse one to another. If to you something not clearly is a signal for me that is not enough a material or it is calculated on experts.
For example, at dialogue with those who is able to use a pendulum or a framework it there will be one questions, with those who is not able it others. With those who tried, and it has not turned out it is necessary to understand absolutely in another way. For whom the encyclopaedia is written? For participants or for those who comes on these pages in search of answers. And among such visitors, probably, the number of those who is able to use and knows by own experience, that this such, least quantity. What for to come on these pages if I so know what is it? What for to add a new material if public who does not wish anything to hear about other point of view here has gathered. Such feature of perception of a new material in psychology is known. The similar sight has taken roots in many religious systems, is shown at fanatics of various predilections: actors, football etc. Let's try benefit from dialogue or at least to agree with existence of other sight.--Shatilov Konstantin 08:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Apologise to inform, to me very much not clearly. But our policy about No Original Research certainly read and understand absolutely you should. Gandalf61 08:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh dear. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 15:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think there's a problem here with Shatilov Konstantin's grasp of English. An editor fluent in Russian would be extremely helpful here to make sure Shatilov understands what's going on, and give another perspective on what Shatilov is trying to communicate to us. --Ronz 16:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's coming to do with that theory that putting a razor blade under a pyyramid keeps it sharp because of something. I'm not entirely sure. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 18:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, incomprehensible. Pavel Vozenilek 13:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a barely comprehensible advert for a book. No need to redirect to "Pyramid power". Gazpacho 21:00, 16 September 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.