Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Early psi research at SRI

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 consensus to merge per WP:POV and WP:N to SRI International. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Early psi research at SRI

Just what we need! Another article inflating the importance of the brief 1970s fad for psychic "research". Guy (Help!) 02:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete focusing on 'at SRI' is just too specific. Maybe just make it a Psi research page? Seems notable in some form. JJL (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge I am not certain if the information in this article is true, perhaps someone can check the sources. But if it is, then content should be moved into relevant sections of Parapsychology, Remote viewing, Extra-sensory perception, Psychokinesis and SRI International. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how the SRI research is any more notable than other research on the subject. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Peter Fleet (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~merge~~delete The topic seems very contrived, but if the references check out (I havn't verified them) in Nature, Science, Scientific American, and IEEE, then it's hard to dismiss as failing WP:FRINGE. NickPenguin's suggested targets seem appropriate, but it would be nice to have just one to suggest, lest it not actually be merged. I plan to return to this AfD when I have more time to look more closely. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That content is already in remote viewing, but the mainstream POV keeps creeping in and the RV crowd hate that. This is a POV fork. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! thanks for the tip, will take a closer look. Pete.Hurd 18:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

I've looked at Remote_Viewing#Early_SRI_experiments and find Guy's fork concerns well founded. This article seems better referenced than the RV article section at first glance, but... I'm recommending delete with the expectation that the fork editors will head back to the RV article and the usual content disagreement process can work it's magic there. Pete.Hurd 22:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! There are two pretty entrenched camps there - "RV is real and the scientific community is a huge conspiracy to do it down" versus "Yeah, right. Now prove it." Guy (Help!) 16:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article on Remote Viewing is enough, and the content of that can be summed up as 'Remote Viewing doesn't exist'. Nick mallory (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant, remote viewing research exists and this page is about research, not remote viewing itself. - perfectblue (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with probably merge later I'm surprised that Guy has nominated this for speedy deletion, as it should have addressed his own Nov 10 suppport here for developing a separate RV piece that relies entirely upon mainstream peer-reviewed material and avoids all partisan/parapsychology sources. (In the interests of full disclosure, the article was prepared by a friend of mine, with my encouragement, in response to this suggestion.) Perhaps it is now too "mainstream POV" as he says above, but I think we could work that issue without speedy deletion, while holding out a vision of eventually replacing the relevant material in remote viewing which is, IMHO, hopelessly self-promoting POV and unfixable at the moment. jxm 15:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not speedy deletion. And this piece is a POV fork. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number of sources available suggests that it is notable in itself. - perfectblue (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It looks like there is real information here, but it hardly necessitates its own article. Especially as SRI International is fairly sparce anyway. -Verdatum 16:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:NickPenguin and others, above. This seems like some useful work, if the references are legitimate, but it makes more sense in Parapsychology. Tim Ross·^talk 17:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Doesn't need its own article. Majoreditor 18:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary POV fork. Eusebeus 18:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: This page is extremely well sources in terms of references. No valid reason has been given for deletion as no policies have been contravened. I recommend that this AFD be closed down and ruled null and void based on the fact that Guy's entire reason for nominating it is in itself a POV statement against the entry that does nothing to assert itself as fact. - perfectblue (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the title is too narrow and contrived, as noted earlier. Would a broader title make keeping it more palatable, rather than commingling this material with the fluff in the main RV piece? jxm (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per NickPenguin. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, in part because the logical parent article is so sparse. Ante lan ^talk 06:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent article - As it is not that big that a subpage is needed yet. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.