| Revision as of 19:03, 18 July 2006 editAntaeus Feldspar (talk | contribs)17,763 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:56, 19 July 2006 edit undoByrgenwulf (talk | contribs)1,234 edits →[]: DeleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| *'''Keep''' based on previous vote for keep, even if only for historical reasons ] 14:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' based on previous vote for keep, even if only for historical reasons ] 14:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep'''. It needs watching to keep people from turning it into a promotion of the ideas involved, but I don't agree that it ''cannot'' be made into an encyclopedia-worthy article. -- ] 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. It needs watching to keep people from turning it into a promotion of the ideas involved, but I don't agree that it ''cannot'' be made into an encyclopedia-worthy article. -- ] 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''': this doesn't seem to be an encyclopaedic. ] 17:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:56, 19 July 2006
Psychotronics
- Psychotronics was nominated for deletion on 2004-12-31. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Psychotronics.
IMHO, cannot be made into an encyclopedia-worthy article -- Writtenonsand 23:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete appears to be a longstanding but non-mainstream newage neologism with no real fixed meaning. I'd be for keeping it if it were fixed or a menaing could be nailed down, but like the niminator I doubt that it's possible. Artw
- Keep based on previous vote for keep, even if only for historical reasons Antares33712 14:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. It needs watching to keep people from turning it into a promotion of the ideas involved, but I don't agree that it cannot be made into an encyclopedia-worthy article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: this doesn't seem to be an encyclopaedic. Byrgenwulf 17:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)