Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychogenes

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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Psychogenes

Original research Alex Bakharev 03:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)d

• KEEP and format The article is not formmated or Wikified, but it is still a good article. It contains lots of good information. The more factual articles on Wikipedia, the better. What would anybody gain from deleting this article? There are even sources for the info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.126.170.194 (talk • contribs).
• Delete. This is unintelligible. Assuming the subject isn't a pseudoscientific hoax, this article would require a complete rewrite to be at all useful. Psychogenetics suffers the same problem. The first reference listed isn't even a real book, as far as I can discover. Stebbins 04:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No verification on the accuracy of the references listed in the article. Possibly also original research. In response to the anon IP's question, I suggest reading WP:ILIKEIT.--TBCΦtalk? 04:09, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete bunch of made-up hooey. Strongly suggest bundling psychogenetics in with this, it's the same nonsense. Oh wait, is that my subliminal nuance data talking? Opabinia regalis 05:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- Pete.Hurd 05:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Move or Delete probably a real concept, but this isn't the English name for sure. M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 06:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Stebbins & Opabinia. Pete.Hurd 18:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

  see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychogenetics Pete.Hurd 18:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:OR Alf^Photoman 19:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
• comment do you guys think a merge of salvagable material or a redirect to genetic memory might be appropriate? Wintermut3 23:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If anything can be salvaged, and verifiable, not-made-up sources can be found, I'm all in favor of a merged rewrite. Stebbins 01:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I really don't see anything here to be salvaged. It's all "Subliminal Nuance Data" and "Conscious Nuance Data" piffle. Add to which the fact that genetic memory redirects to racial memory, another article stuffed with WP:Complete bollocks also without a single reference. Pete.Hurd 02:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

    note also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Racial memory Pete.Hurd 18:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

• There is nothing here to be salvaged. This is at best pseudoscientific nonsense, and at worst it's just plain nonsense. Delete. Arkyan 16:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• The following comment was left on the talk page of this AfD. I have copied here so that it won't be overlooked during the discussion. Stebbins 21:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP and format Although this is not an actual known term, it is properly defined and basically it is coining a new term. As a clinical psychologist and dentist in SF, CA I would find it very useful in discussing certain areas of the human psyche. Wikipedia shall only thrive when it is inclusive of new, evolving terms. That is what makes english a very powerful language. It is inclusive, not exclusive. I have ascertained that the referenced work is published by Aakila Rose Publishing out of San Jose, CA and is scheduled for release April 1, 2007. And that one of the authors, doctor Salma Rashid, is the author of the article herein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.194.88.167 (talk • contribs).

    Note, wikipedia, as an encyclopedia - a reference of existing knowledge, makes a practice of not being a place where new terms are coined, see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. Pete.Hurd 22:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Tolerate and EvolveI came across this and another article due to interest in learning about a group named "Psychogenetic," some Punk-Rock or Rock group. And reading the discussion going on here, as a layperson, it sounds like stuffy old minds who have grown intolerant of advancing into new realms. I thought Wiki is suppose to be a progressive growing forum where traditional ways are at least attempted to be left behind. In reading this article I wonder why no one has actually come up with it before and made it as popular as genes or genetics. It certainly is clear that what it is defining is something that us lesser human minds do experience or have. My central point would be what do any of you deletion gents fear? It's a good concept and not a danger to anyone's sensabilities. I say use it to advertise Wiki to the masses so they can be drown here. It's creativity at its best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronalddavid (talk • contribs) 19:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
  • No one is being intolerant. The problem with this page isn't that it is "advancing into new realms", but that it sounds made-up and is not verified by reliable sources. Stebbins 21:05, 14 March 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.