Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum evolution (alternative)

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. The article embodies all that is worst about this kind of topic, however. It's one long stream of thought without structure. -Splash - tk 23:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum evolution (alternative)

{{prod}} after a long time needeing {{cleanup}}. Perhaps a wider audience can agree to delete it or save it. UtherSRG (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• weak keep it has sources at the bottom, so I'm inclined to say it should be kept, but it is a quite esoteric subject, so I'm not sure where to go with it. FrozenPurpleCube 17:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep, although I would like to know (and the article to reflect) how many and what kinds of people believe this. And I would support another vote being taken at a later time. Lundse 22:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pseudoscience meets buzzword bingo I feel, but IANAScientist. Can this be kept open to get more input ? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with quantum mind or quantum biology. This is just another breed of the same stuff. Some of the sources and a tiny bit of the prose can be incorporated onto one of those pages (take your pick as to which one -- the latter may be the most appropriate). --ScienceApologist 15:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The theory itself is off the deep end, but the article cites sources and discusses the objections to the theory, so I think it deserves to stay. It also needs some TLC to bring it up to standards, but I'm hip deep in alligators right now, so I'm not volunteering. -- Donald Albury 15:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge for reasons given by Science Apologist. If not merge, then delete. Moriori 20:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not "esoteric" in the sense of technical complexity, just pseudoscience. Michael K. Edwards 10:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This pseudoscientific article should be merged with Darwinism. GoodSamaritan 02:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It is not clear to me that the sources cited are either reliable - a genetic engineering .org site that recommends a cell phone brand? I don't think so - or, in the case of the book, relevant to the claims of the article. If this is real science, someone will do it right at some point. I believe it's fiction, based on what I see. Original author also blanks his Talk pages, which doesn't go far with me for credibility. - Corporal Tunnel 20:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Doubt about a religion to be scientifically true, must not cause an article on that religion to be deleted. Obviously the concept of the article topic exists and there has been scientifical criticism on it - thus it was certainly notable enough. The article itself mentions the criticism. I prefer people to read about that here than to hear about the topic in a non-critical environment. — SomeHuman 19 Oct 2006 17:17 (UTC)
• Keep. It cites references, and is about a theory still talked about. It needs work, for sure, and it has too much POV, but it's worth having an article on. I would say weak keep, but I think it should stand alone, rather than merge, so I'm saying normal keep. AubreyEllenShomo 17:21, 19 October 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.