Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Tech (philosophy)

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 keep, but tag for cleanup. alphaChimp ^laudare 23:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neo-Tech (philosophy)

neo tech is a scam sent through the mail and this article promotes it this article should be deleted fully and forever never to plauge wikipedia again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grogyboy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 28 July 2006

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: There was a previous AfD of this article, under a previous title, at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Neo-Tech. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Clean up and Keep Neo tech is certainly acceptable as a notable internet meme, there are quite a few adherents, websites, etc etc, which mention Neo-tech. It is appropiate for this reason, however, to keep a third party point of view regarding Neo-Tech and I suggest a strong clean-up. I can't vouch for Neo Tech being a mail order scam or not, but it is a succesful mail order scam if so, and historically relevant in that case, i.e. one of the first 'internet' marketed ideologies. Sometimes I can't tell if it's tongue in cheek or not, as some of their arguments lead to the quite rational and reasonable to the quite bizarre, but this is a personal assesment and my vote is not dependent upon mine or any personal view of what Neo Tech is.User:Tumbleman
• Keep and Cleanup per above. Also here are the search engine hits that show that this is used. (search terms were, "Neo-Tech" philosophy) google = 15,500, yahoo = 4,500, MSN = 4,702 and ask.com = 2,900.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Zap if no one cleans up. In case that's not allowed, just zap. I agree the best thing to do is to have a major clean-up of the article, however I'm worried that there may be no one who's up for the task -- seems what's needed is someone who knows Neo-Tech inside out and isn't predisposed to or against Neo-Tech. In case such a clean-up isn't feasible, I propose to move it somewhere under Neo-Objectivism. Bi 11:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, unfortunately. Being impossible to clean up is not grounds for deletion, and it's a WP:Notable, WP:Verifiable scam. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Neotech is notable. By the way, it's not a scam. It's a philosophy. Some of the stuff may sound far out and the marketing techniques from the publisher sound scamish but that's intentional. They try to make the philosophy sound magical and mystical in order to lure in mystics looking for an authority to tell them how to have easy wealth and happiness. But what they are actually trying to do is transform them into non-mystics. They teach that the individual has to be his own authority and there is nothing that can get them wealth and happiness but hard work and making your own decisions instead of waiting for someone to show you the way. Or worse yet, waiting for death in order to have immortal life and bliss. That is the whole point of the philosophy, to eliminate mystics. From reading around on the net it looks like the publisher even buys mailing lists for subscribers to Christian magazines in order to turn them off to mysticism because they know they are an easy target as people looking for external guidance over their lives. JoeMystical 20:25, 3 August 2006 (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.