Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Life Progression

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. Uncontested. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future Life Progression

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

Unsourced, non-notable neologism. Not the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Should have been redirected to Anne Jirsch, but that was recently deleted. czar 20:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable pseudoscience per nomination. Can't find anything about it online in WP:RS. NeemNarduni2 (talk) 22:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as currently questionable for a better notable article, WP:TNT at best. SwisterTwister talk 06:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2016 (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.