Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Awareness Loves Life
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
- 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. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-01 08:04Z
[edit] Awareness Loves Life
Page putatively created solely to promote the book "The Little Book of Awareness" and the website http://meaning-of-all.org (which is merely a portal that links to http://ucadia.org). The page has been created by User:Architect of ucadia (contribs) which has also edited the article O'Collins, the name of the book's author. Cacycle 02:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable promotion. -- Chairman S. Talk Contribs 02:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as promotion. Article seems to be written by the author of the book it promotes, as seen in other edits concerning his surname and in the username chosen, which is also the name of the only sites google flags it for besides Wikipedia and Yahoo Answers. - Mocko13 03:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Non-notable pseudo scientific book Al-Bargit 17:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do Not Delete Incorrect association originally made by Cacycle that entry a promotion of Transplexity/Hoffman et.al. Article has been edited and conforms to Wikipedia Policy, removed of any promotion comments. No reference to O'Collins at all in article and is a legitimate alternate theory. Architect of Ucadia 04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC). It is grossly unfair that upon the removal of all reference to O'Collins because of the original complaint that additional users now have voted for deletion based on the absence of notations. I plead and ask all those who keenly advocate the elimination of this entry for guidance- am I supposed to include legitimate references to my publishing and work and be damned by you as a nobody, or not include myself and this reference be damned as having no central notation? Please, I beg before another user happily posts their negative comments that one of you with infinite wisdom and experience to tell me what you expect? Thanks Frank O'CollinsArchitect of Ucadia 12:53, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
- Delete The citations are over 20 yrs old, and while they may relate to the general idea of this theory, there is no reason to think they relate to it in any specific way, as much of the OR speculation is based on more recently fashionable concepts. There would have to be references to N for the particular formulation under this particular name. DGG 07:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete the references cited do not support this theory or support its notability. While the references are valid, they are only valid in the sense that they were referred to when this article, which appears to be original research, was created. The author claims it is "a legitimate alternate theory" but offers no references to back up that claim. Hatch68 06:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
