Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noetic positivism

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Noetic positivism

Noetic positivism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This does not appear to be notable, and has no references from reliable sources. Google finds only the self-published books that are the subject of the article and a lot of related social media links Mcewan (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Mcewan (talk) 10:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The article doesn't even explain anything; even if there was something interesting in the references, the article itself is gobledygook. To editorialize a bit: it looks like this is just someone's weird pet theory of something (or everything? The reader can't even tell that much) constructed out of confusedly tossing together a bunch of technical terms in a way that makes no sense.134.29.178.146 (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete As the article says, a brand-new theory. I can decipher what is intended, but there is no possible notability DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

..One can even argue with Eternity if there’s a weighty pretext, substantial argument, and resources of the required level… "The Sigma Passion" a science novel by Vlad K. Once

Excellent idea(considered for deletion). I would also suggest checking up the following articles "Noetic psychology", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic theory", for compliance with scientific (common) sense according to the following criteria;

1. Subject matter of

2. Object of research

3. Target, methods etc.

If answers to these simple questions are not found, then let at least a basic explanation (definition)of what these sciences mean be presented to the world. And of course my “best wishes” to all moderators of the following articles "Noetic psychology" and "Noetic sciences". Looking forward to hearing explanations from them, why these quasi-sciences which do not have got any above mentioned criteria (1,2,3) can delude the readers of the Wikipedia? I think that having answered this question we will be able to understand why there are so many people willing to delete an article about a real new science - Noetic positivism. Or if The Times or the Nature haven’t written about something then this something does not exist in the world, does it? Let me share a "little secret" - the editorial staff of these journals is the same people like you who search for internet links etc… And the ones like me develop science..

As for Noetic concept it’s in this exact way (but not as it is written in the following articles ("Noetic psychology", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic theory") was this term used by Husserl in his writings on phenomenology.

What you call - gobledygook - is an academic (in its keenest meaning) form for presentation of a scientific theory. (But if you had the respective education, you would surely know about it)

I would like to comment about one thing (solely for the article on Noetic positivism) for the future. This article may only be removed by someone who can scientifically prove that the formula for passion is wrong. Otherwise (deciding to remove the article) and keeping the following articles "Noetic psychology", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic theory", - you show either incompetence or personal concern/involvement...

Best wishes..

"The Sigma Passion" by Vlad K. Once 2010 http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Sigma-Passion-Power/dp/0956395171/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339056458&sr=8-1

"The Sigma Passion" by Vlad K. Once 2011 http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Passion-Noetic-Positivism-ebook/dp/B00669E8A2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1339056627&sr=8-1

"The Sigma Passion" by Vlad K. Once 2012 http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-Passion-Noetic-Positivism-ebook/dp/B006ASJE6M/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1339056664&sr=8-3

'ETHICS' (academic essay) http://noeticpositivism.blogspot.com/2011/03/ethics-article-guardian-refused-to.html

Noeticpositivism (talk) 08:40, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

For those who try to use the Act 1R (Articles with a single source) I hope that everyone present here understands that the research level of Noetic positivism - is possible only thanks to writings of such great people like René Descartes, Edmund Husserl, Auguste Comte, Immanuel Kant, Max Planck and others, and I am just one of those few who try to follow their hard path of knowledge…

аnd you have to decide yourselves who you follow

And last but not least - this article about Noetic positivism does not end here yet...

Noeticpositivism (talk) 10:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You and the theory may well be correct but unfortunately, until this is recognised elsewhere, it does not belong in Wikipedia. As I said on your talk page, the single best thing that you could do to improve the chances of the article being kept is to find references in reliable sources for the subject in order to demonstrate that it is notable, not original research and not from a single source. I did try to find such references, but couldn't. Mcewan (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. But if you were more attentive you could see that various publishing houses had published my writings… And believe me; they used to tell Husserl the same things about phenomenology (or even worse). By the way, if I understand you correctly then you have found the basis for "Noetic sciences" in Dan Brown’s work, and how can it be otherwise with the articles "Noetic theory", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute" not being deleted yet? Frankly speaking, as with a colleague, you can delete my article (the research will never stop with it), but then you MUST delete quack articles on "Noetic psychology", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic theory" from Wikipedia as well. Thank you for your attention spent on Noetic positivism. and by the way, the Top-level domains "noeticpositivism" nevertheless belong to me.

Regards

Noeticpositivism (talk) 13:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I can assure you that I have not and will never read Dan Brown's work:) I happen to agree about the "quack" articles you mention. You will see that I have worked on a couple. You could too, perhaps also on something in the Philosophy and Religion projects area. Understand that this process is not about judging the correctness or otherwise of your work but about the criteria for its inclusion in Wikipedia. I wish you well and hope you find the recognition you seek: it may just not be here, at least initially. Mcewan (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

1. I hope that you didn’t have a feeling that I feel some dislike towards you. It’s not like that. I understand that you are doing your job. And I’m rather understanding with critics as I consider critics one of the most important conditions of improvement. (Critics but not discourtesy and stupidity…)

2. As for Dan Brown, I want to stress that he is rather famous as a writer. But as a scientist… I don’t know him. (especially in the noetic concept area)

3. As for your invitation in the Philosophy and Religion projects area, - thank you very much, I realize all the responsibility and I’ll quite possibly join you.

4. As for you wishing me success, I’m touched. But I think it’s necessary to make it clear that as a scientist I don’t look for fame. (I’m just trying to implement my potential).

As for me as an author, of course I’m interested in success of my writings; feeling the necessity to choose between the immediate triumph of a fiction writer and the fame for ages I try to write so that a person of a high level of education (such as you for example) would consider the time spent for reading my book a worthy occupation and could recommend doing the same to their children…

(You can see whether I’m right in rare but independent and honest reviews to my books… by Vlad K. Once)..

Best

P/S.

Specially for those who is good with (..gobledygook - pet theory of something..) and (..no possible notability..) - The (www.uspto.gov) database lacks the "US Patent No. 12,928/592” patent number specified in article about "Noetic theory"..

Noeticpositivism (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

---

• Delete although a plain google search yields 8000+ hits, they're all blogs or self-published. There are no independent, verifiable, reliable sources or significant 3rd party sources to indicate notability.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 05:05, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Howdy,

I suggest to review the article Yahoo published "Futuristic Computer Program Arrives Ahead of Computer". http://news.yahoo.com/futuristic-computer-program-arrives-ahead-computer-141449529.html

I would like to share my opinion on it with you straight away. - This article is no more than a sham. Despite the fact that its subject matter is very serious, the main objective of this article consists in creating ‘information noise’. Such actions are usually undertaken to attract investors, or to report on the spent funds invested previously (let’s say a program is designed which can only be tested in devices which have not yet been manufactured…). What I mean is that, a publication in ‘independent sources’ does not always verify the subject of discussion... And talking of devices (quantum computers), I’d like to remind that the "Noetic theory" article discusses those, doesn’t it? Furthermore, this article specifies the number of the patent which can not be found in the USPTO.GOV database (that is to emphasize the fact that certain articles which "comply with the standards" of Wiki and are verifiable, still contain “some inaccuracies’, to put it mild… As far as the mere “Noetic theory’ is concerned, which is discussed in the homonymous article, I would like to request all participants of this discussion to share their view on it (if you feel entitled to delete a strictly academic article about Noetic positivism), please, share your view on this so to say ‘offence of the science” inflicted by those who skillfully use Wikipedia - with all the respective consequences for the Wiki readers.

P/S.

Just in case, I would like to remind you that any theory possesses a number of functions. The most important ones are as follows:

1. A theory provides its user with conceptual structures;

2. A theory suggests development of a certain glossary of terms;

3. A theory provides for understanding, explanation and forecast of various manifestations of the subject matter of the theory.

Please, check if the article "Noetic theory" article complies with the specified (academic) requirements.

(The next article subject to discussion is Noetic Advanced Studies Institute)..

Best wishes!

Noeticpositivism (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith and take it that you are not familiar with wikipedia. According to Wikipedia policy, articles need to have verifiable, reliable, sources. This afd page is to discuss whether this particular article meets those criteria. Please limit your arguments accordingly. If you disagree with those requirements, this isn't the place to discuss it. Try the various policy talk pages or Wikipedia:Village pump if you want to discuss WP policy about notability and sourcing. Also, you might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS to understand why it is not a valid argument for keeping this article.--William Thweatt ^Talk | ^Contribs 17:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In my turn, I'd like to admit that you are right, and I am really not fully aware of the rules of WP. And by all means I will accept and agree with the opinion of the editorial board of WP (in any case, the formula for passion developed by me is certified in my name), same applies to the concept of Noetic positivism. By the way (and please don't take it too serious), rules differ from dogmas primarily by exceptions. It's merely an observation...

Noeticpositivism (talk) 19:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the reasons of the opponents stated above and below are deemed fair and sufficient to remove the articles, then why noone wants to use the same reasons in the course of analysis of the forthcoming articles ("Noetic theory", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic sciences", "Noetic psychology", "Institute of Noetic Sciences")? Does WP apply the same rules and policiesapplicable to all articles? Also, I can not but draw your attention to the scientifically low level of some commentaries published here. I wonder who those commentators are and how they come up with such ways of expressing themselves, - If you like princip of WP:Walled garden - please do check the next articles for this situation... ("Noetic theory", "Noetic Advanced Studies Institute", "Noetic sciences", "Noetic psychology", "Institute of Noetic Sciences")!

Best

Noeticpositivism (talk) 14:45, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. This is the central point of a kind of WP:Walled garden of bafflegab. (I congratulate DGG on his ability to understand what theory precisely is being advanced here; his abilities surpass my own.) I can't find anything that's by an arm's-length third-party expert source that indicates that this is of any notability. Ubelowme (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2012 (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.