Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:00, 6 October 2006 editByrgenwulf (talk | contribs)1,234 editsm →[]: added link to "Medical Hypotheses" editorial policy← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:09, 7 February 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(29 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''delete'''. - ]''']'''] 11:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}}
This is a ]-ridden "]". It has not been published in any ] &mdash; both journals from which the article is sourced are decidedly cranky (''Medical Hypotheses'' particularly: they will publish anything, quite literally, as long as the author pays per page ). It also fails ] policies, since no real assertion of notability is made. And it arguably is ] as well. Moreover, Misplaced Pages does not need to be a platform for the promotion of utterly misleading drivel. This is a ]-ridden "]". It has not been published in any ] &mdash; both journals from which the article is sourced are decidedly cranky (''Medical Hypotheses'' particularly: they will publish anything, quite literally, as long as the author pays per page ). It also fails ] policies, since no real assertion of notability is made. And it arguably is ] as well. Moreover, Misplaced Pages does not need to be a platform for the promotion of utterly misleading drivel.


Was prodded yesterday by someone else, but the tag was removed by an IP/anon with no explanation.] 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Was prodded yesterday by someone else, but the tag was removed by an IP/anon with no explanation.] 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

'''Update''' The creator's apparent vanity piece has also been nominated for deletion, ]. ] 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' as a violation of all the policies mentioned in the nomination. I suspect this article violates ] as well: it was created by an IP, {{user|24.185.23.19}}, who also edited ] last April. According to ] (the article on the inventor of this "theory"), Hu attended that school in the 1990s. ] 17:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom and Anville. Note that this was deleted in November 2004, which looks to be before the deletion log started, but see ] and ] about the same IP. I've left a note for ], who seems to be the one requesting deletion back then and appears to still be active. ] 19:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
**Good detective work. The first link you posted only works for admins, it appears, but the discovery is nonetheless interesting. ] 19:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
***Yes, Special:Undelete is an admin-only page. I should have noted that, sorry. ] 20:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
**From the ]:
***15:16, 26 Nov 2004 ] deleted ]
** ] 20:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. ] 20:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom, especially ]. --] 21:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' per Huping Hu. This piece was initially written by me when Misplaced Pages was in its infant stage back in 2004 as a way to introduce our ] because someone cited our ] in the ] and, I believe, ] entry. Please be advised that ]'s statement with respect to spamming is factually false and, upon information and belief, libelous. Our ] speaks for itself and if it was added or edited within ] and ] the purpose was related to relevancy not vanity. May GOD bless Misplaced Pages and its participants so that it may stay useful, innovative, diverse and informative. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
:Looks like you are claiming that you are Huping Hu and also that you are the author of the two articles. Is that correct? If so I add ] to my vote. And {{user|72.89.197.56}}, please review ] and note that making legal threats in the Misplaced Pages is gravely frowned upon.---] 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' as per ]. This article reads like pure pseudoscientific newagery; there is a bit about (poorly described) physical background but no indication of how spin states are supposed to generate conciouness, so the article completely fails in its mission of even describing the alleged "theory". NeuroQuantology?!! Is this yet another crankjournal? Sheesh! Can we consolidate this AfD with the biography? I agree with ] that even a cursory examination raises the issue of ]. ---] 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
::We had an article on ''NeuroQuantology'' at some point, but it met a justly deserved fate (PRODed, I believe, not AfD). A on that journal was quite illuminating, as was a perusal of its website. . . but that's not really a topic germane to this discussion. ] 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' No evidence of notability.] 20:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per above. ] 04:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

*Keep!* No current theory of consciousness will be the correct one. Or even close to the correct one. They will all verge on scientism. But, based upon this article in Misplaced Pages, this Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory (SMCT) looks like the best one we've got so far. Please don't discourage serious attempts at the hard problem of consciousness by immediately deleting every theory which is proposed! <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <small>— ] (]) has made ] outside this topic. </small>

*'''Delete''' No evidence of notability; the theory is a ]-ridden ] whose main claim to fame is appearing in this Misplaced Pages article. ] 04:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 05:09, 7 February 2022

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory

This is a bollocks-ridden "fringe theory". It has not been published in any reliable sources — both journals from which the article is sourced are decidedly cranky (Medical Hypotheses particularly: they will publish anything, quite literally, as long as the author pays per page ). It also fails notability policies, since no real assertion of notability is made. And it arguably is original research as well. Moreover, Misplaced Pages does not need to be a platform for the promotion of utterly misleading drivel.

Was prodded yesterday by someone else, but the tag was removed by an IP/anon with no explanation.Byrgenwulf 14:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Update The creator's apparent vanity piece has also been nominated for deletion, here. Byrgenwulf 17:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you are claiming that you are Huping Hu and also that you are the author of the two articles. Is that correct? If so I add WP:NPOV to my vote. And 72.89.197.56 (talk · contribs), please review WP:NLT and note that making legal threats in the Misplaced Pages is gravely frowned upon.---CH 23:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per WP:BOLLOCKS. This article reads like pure pseudoscientific newagery; there is a bit about (poorly described) physical background but no indication of how spin states are supposed to generate conciouness, so the article completely fails in its mission of even describing the alleged "theory". NeuroQuantology?!! Is this yet another crankjournal? Sheesh! Can we consolidate this AfD with the biography? I agree with User:Anville that even a cursory examination raises the issue of WP:VAIN. ---CH 22:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
We had an article on NeuroQuantology at some point, but it met a justly deserved fate (PRODed, I believe, not AfD). A Google Scholar search on that journal was quite illuminating, as was a perusal of its website. . . but that's not really a topic germane to this discussion. Anville 23:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep!* No current theory of consciousness will be the correct one. Or even close to the correct one. They will all verge on scientism. But, based upon this article in Misplaced Pages, this Spin-Mediated Consciousness Theory (SMCT) looks like the best one we've got so far. Please don't discourage serious attempts at the hard problem of consciousness by immediately deleting every theory which is proposed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.66.41 (talk • contribs) — 68.81.66.41 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
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.