Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neurokinetics

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neurokinetics

Hoax or Original research. The article makes no sense, and appears to have no relation to the term as it seems to be actually used. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neurokinetic harmonics and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hierarchical system theory Nonsuch 23:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

*Delete - I'm thinking this is tinfoil hat stuff. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Neutral I'm not yet convinced of its notability, but per Nick Y's links, its also not "something I made up in my mom's basement one decade". - Richfife 23:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• comment [1], [2]. Yeah the article is a real disaster. Perhaps there is something to the concept though?--Nick Y. 23:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, the phrase exists, but the article has no resemblance to the way the term is actually used. The article states "Neurokinetic is the study of the phenomenon of harmonic relation (alignment or resonance) within a proportion of total cortical mass or brain mass" which doesn't even begin to make sense. Nonsuch 23:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete either way per nom. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. If it reappeared with sources, that might be different. Septentrionalis 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without bias for recreation. I don't believe it is a hoax, simply hopelessly flawed. The article reflects an extremeley poor understanding of the subject matter not an intention to deceive. Also it does not seem to be original research, again, simply a flawed understanding from the very root. The only reason to delete is that there is no usable content to save.--Nick Y. 17:12, 13 July 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.