Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Density (universe)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 --JForget 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Density (universe)

Density (universe) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Pseudo-science / ufology / twaddle. We could delete the present state of the article on the grounds of no context but I will do the author's job for them and say that it comes from Cassiopaea. We deleted a set of related articles back in 2005: Laura Knight-Jadczyk, Cassiopaeans and 6th density. I doubt if it has become any more notable in the last two years. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:OR = mebe I should begin writing articles about Physiology of Yoda da ancient jedi mastah or The magical effect of yoga on the inner self? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - no notability is my reasoning for deletion. The fact that I think it's complete and utter bullshit would just be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, so go for the first reason. - mattbuck 02:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete this hoax. It's not even OR. It's fraudulent. Majoreditor (talk) 02:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Awghhh, so you're saying I shouldn't start thinking about creating my article about YODA? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete as unsourced and non-notable philosophy (to be charitable). Was deproded by creator without solving the PROD concerns at all. Excellent research, RHaworth. DMacks (talk) 03:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as entirely OR. The article claims that the universe has seven densities. About the seventh, it states, "7th Density is where you are in Union with the One where you merge back with the 'Is-ness' of 'All that IS'. No more 'I' just one Being. Call it God if you like." This statement is not attributed to any source, not even a crazy man's blog. RJC Talk 04:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete flaky original research. And I think I smell WP:BULLSHIT. Dethme0w (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, original research, although good faith should be assumed that someone just has an healthy imagination and ignorant of WP's rules. hateless 05:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. “Original research”. —SlamDiego←T 10:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete It is indeed original research. Unreferenced too, at that. ― LADY GALAXY 14:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR and nonsense. JJL (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research; a load of claims that seem dubious to me. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per above, citing WP:OR and WP:N. Even if bizarre, pseudoscientific theories may be notable if there is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources - though, in most cases, the notability rests with the author or proponent of the theory. Either way, there's no data here to suggest that this is anything more than an original essay. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:29, 17 January 2008 (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.