Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psicanica

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Dmcdevit·t 03:18, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Psicanica

THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT VIOLATION. I am Thomas Powell, the author of the psicanica materials, owner of the website psicanica.com, and holder of all copyrights on the books and materials. I have placed that information on Wikipedia. If you wish to verify this, you may contact me by phone at 011 52 951 515 2149 or email me at tompowell@psicanica.com. I furthermore give anybody permission to use the articles I place on Wikipedia freely with condition that they cite the source as www.psicanica.com. I believe that all human knowledge belongs to the race and is the source of our progress -- a point of view, alas, not supported by our current copyright laws. But that is another issue.

I am new to Wikipedia and how it operates. However, looking over some of the comments here, it is interesting to see invalidations of what is very technical, philosophic and psychological material by people who, as far as I can see from their pages, have no background in the area at all, much less have even read the source books they are invalidating. (I have made it as non-technical and reader friendly as I can on Wikipedia, but the source materials are very technical.) I get the impression that for some, it is their hobby to just invalidate/delete whenever they can. The fact that some item of information should be beyond or outside of one's current level of knowledge or even contradict it, does not make it wrong or eligible for deletion. I thought that Wikipedia was a brilliant project, an attempt to gather up and catalog human knowledge. To see such trite remarks/reasons for deletion (other than copy vios, which I have answered above) and without any supporting arguments or discussion of the validity of the information--even if by people not in the field of philosophy--is disappointing.

Tinfoil hattery. Denni☯ 00:16, 2005 July 21 (UTC)

• Delete all the Google results are in Spanish, and may well be about something else entirely, but that doesn't matter much as there's only [59 Google hits] anyway. Delete this not-quite-patent-nonsense-but-still-regular-nonsense. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:28, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Actually should be deleted as a copyright violation. The entire article is Psicanica.com copied word for word--BirgitteSB 01:43, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Psicanica changed my life. However, delete. Friday 01:53, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. POV, advocacy, advertisement, non-notable, copy-vio, etc. Binadot 01:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as copy/vio. Hamster Sandwich 03:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete copyvio. JamesBurns 08:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
• Either Delete or clean up majorly so that it's an article and not an advert/copyvio. The music on the website annoyed me, but that isn't the point. --Stevefarrell 00:12, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek 23:28, 22 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.