Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retrocausality

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. ŞρІϊţ Ж ĨήƒϊήίтҰ ^(тąιк) 04:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retrocausality

This article represents original research. --ScienceApologist 01:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, no it doesn't. -Amarkov ^blah_edits 01:46, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What the heck? --- RockMFR 01:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What OR, where? Need stronger argument from nom for such a conclusion to be reached... - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 02:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Has a lot of on-net discussion and at least one person online has created an extensive bibliography of alleged works. Certainly seems not to be original research and has enough out there to write a well referenced article about - Peripitus (Talk) 02:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• comment How does it represent original research? -- Librarianofages 03:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not original research. Split Infinity ^(talk) 03:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - if only because of WP:SNOW. --Dennisthe2 03:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I'll ask SA to elaborate on this, but I agree with him; this is a novel synthesis of independently published claims. The physics section is, taken on its own, muddled at best; the OR is in the connection to the psychology discussion, in which each of the individual studies mentioned is either a) widely agreed to be plagued with methodological problems (PEAR), or b) entirely unrelated to the thesis (skin conductance and heart rate studies). Opabinia regalis 04:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Seriously - the creator, User:Dicorpo, has contributed nothing outside of this type of material, in particular his linkspamming of this "open access journal" (read: some guy's website) for these ideas. Also, the sources cited in this article may appear to be legitimate, but "Physics Essays" and "NeuroQuantology" are not well-regarded journals, and those sources that are reliable, are related to the psychology experiments - which, as I mentioned, are unrelated to the quantum consciousness thesis. Opabinia regalis 04:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep close please. Just H 04:22, 18 December 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.