Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychogeophysics

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychogeophysics

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

Bogus. Used for promoting commercial event which was spammed to various unrelated groups. Created by one user, no valid references, and consists of crank/fictional theories and methodologies Ms7821 (talk) 13:45, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete - Ms7821 is incorrect on two points. Firstly, a cursory search of subject header from the linked posting shows named artists are linked to the various groups to which were posted through concerns with art, free software, and open hardware. Secondly, the event is not-for-profit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22edien (talk • contribs) 12:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC) — 22edien (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Being non-profit does not establish notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 22edien: I only referenced the spam because it shows the article being used as promotion (the article didn't exist until just before the email was sent). The real problem with this article is its notability and verifiability (see WP:MADEUP). Ms7821 (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete _ I see no treatment of this is reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete Psychogeophysics is referenced on the cited socialfiction.org site (which has strong links with psychogeography), and also with reference to workshops hosted by the transmediale festival in Berlin, Germany and by Aarhus University, Denmark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pickledx (talk • contribs) 18:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC) — Pickledx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Looks to me like a cross between utter rhubarb (I nearly put b******s) and spam. It might benefit from translation into English, but I doubt it. The sole reference given is to a site connected with the 'conference' being plugged. 'A novel discipline' is a description given. A similar description could have been given to Surrealism in its infancy - and had Wikipedia been around then the article would have not been kept. In some future time (but hopefully not in a 'city in ruins'), this discipline may achieve note. Till then, no. Peridon (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Peridon, this is utter nonsense. The given external links are either irrelevant to the subject or totally nuts. --MelanieN (talk) 03:01, 4 July 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.