Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum Theory Parallels to Consciousness

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 per WP:SNOW and CSD:G1. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article consists entirely of nonsensical musings over pseudoscientific psychic claims. Most references are either not reputable, or taken out of context. Legitimate content concerning somewhat similar pseudoscience can probably be found elsewhere in wp, though I don't currently recall where. Delete Philosophus ^T 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Somebody's musings. --CSTAR 17:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR--Nick Y. 17:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV and nonsense dressed up with bad references. Anville 17:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OR and WP:Please don't write articles that make my eyes bleed WilyD 17:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR. -- SCZenz 20:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as patent nonsense.Nonsuch 20:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not patent nonsense, just regular nonsense. ;) -- SCZenz 20:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not convinced it doesn't meet criteria II for patent nonsense - maybe it's just over my head - the majority of my university level quantum mechanics courses were at the undergraduate level. WilyD 22:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's type II patent nonsense (IMHO). The jargon is legit, but the words are strung together into grammatically correct but semantically meaningless sentences. It's quite artful. Nonsuch 22:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't fathom how this might be permitted to remain. To quote Pauli, I believe: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong!" — Dave 22:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I occasionally enjoy reading such stuff, and sometimes think that someday it may even be found to be true, I also think that someday is thousands of years away, and must be necessity be approached in a scientific fashion. This aint it, so delete. linas 01:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I think reading this caused "entire cell ensembles in [my] brain [to] be mentally decoupled from their thermodynamic environment." Ouch. --Satori Son 04:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Looks like a very half-baked (quarter-baked?) attempt to express Roger Penrose's theories using inappropriate scientific-sounding language. Tevildo 12:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Karol 15:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete by all means...disreputable and not even what might be called an "article"--Byrgenwulf 20:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Well beyond patent nonsense, and into the rarified air of deranged claptrap. -- GWO
• Delete as nonsense crankery. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 16 July 2006 (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.