Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotronic (mind control)

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. Tim Song (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotronic (mind control)

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

Contested prod. Psychotronics is a redirect to parapsychology, this disamb is wholly unecessary. More fundamentally, there are insufficient reliable sources amidst the comspiracy theories to make this a notable topic. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic telepathy. GDallimore (Talk) 11:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NEO. "Mind control" doesn't exist, nor does "pyschotronics", so all this article would end up being about was a particular neologism. Claritas (talk) 14:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Using Claritas' logic then we should also delete the articles on ghosts, Santa Clause and God. Notability guidelines are not to establish the real-world existence of the subject, but to provide a verifiable encyclopedic article on the subject. Inniverse (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't believe in mind control? Cult leaders and torturers use it all the time. Dream Focus 11:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Psychotronic (mind control) is demonstrate as notable by the thousands of google hits pointing to hundreds of independent websites, articles, and other verifiable references to the topic of Psychotronic (mind control). This subject was even discussed in congress [1]. Other links include [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] as just a very small sampling of web-articles that I quickly found. As I wrote in my comment above, notability it is not about whether you believe it to be true or not, it is about verifiability - and this subject easily qualifies under the general notability guideline. Inniverse (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

loc.gov link doesn't seem to work but I presume it says much the same as the "Space preservation act", ie absolutely nothing that could be used to write an article. The rest of the sources are not even close to reliable. As I said in the nomination - and thank you for proving my point so well - there are no reliable sources amidst the many conspiracy theories thrown up by google. GDallimore (Talk) 20:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen what's at the link. It's just the text of the act itself with the word "psychotronic" buried in it as a passing mention with no explanation (and certainly no indication of discussion by Congress). Not the basis for an article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:OR sourced to "mindjustice.org" and other fringe/conspiracy sites. And no WP:RS reliable sources found for supposed relevance of "The Space Preservation Act" to this topic. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per LuckyLouie - 152.16.15.144 (talk) 23:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It gets coverage and is a real thing. Click the Google news link at the top of the AFD. One detailed one is [8] Dream Focus 09:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Book search shows results for the term being used as well. Dream Focus 09:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link in the article to confirm the information about Putin outlawing this in Russia in 2001, the LA Times having an article about that. Dream Focus 09:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dream, there's no way that "OpEdNews" meets WP:RS. Claritas (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google news found it, so I assume Google considers it a reliable source of news. Anyway, as I said, the La Times article [9] I linked to in the article, proves this a real thing. Plus hordes more mention of it. It was even outlawed in Russia, and apparently a bill was introduced in America to outlaw it as well, that failing. Dream Focus 10:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it's obviously an urban legend which has got out of hand, if the article is kept it needs to deal with the subject in a encyclopaedic way, similar to Fan death. I see your point, however. Claritas (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An urban legend? The Russians admitted to having programs for this, and America have done this sort of thing as well. It exist. Dream Focus 11:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Pyschotronics" doesn't exist, so I have no idea what you're actually claiming the Americans/Russians have been doing..... Claritas § 11:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[10] The Washington Post article about this is off limits unless you pay to read the whole thing. The Berkeley Daily Planet article[11] is available for reading.

•Through the use of land-based, sea-based, or space-based systems using radiation, electromagnetic, psychotronic, sonic, laser, or other energies directed at individual persons or targeted populations for the purpose of information war, mood management, or mind control of such persons or populations.

I suggested at the time that it seemed impossible that these weapons were even possible, but Kucinich, a member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, assured me that these weapons exist and “those people who control them are deadly serious and intend to use them if we don’t stop the weaponization of space.”

So a member of congress, who is also a member of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, says that these things do exist, and tried to get a law passed to keep them out of space. Dream Focus 11:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotronic space weapons exist? Then there should be dozens of reliable sources we can use to verify this rather than a few fringe blogs and books by conspiracy mongers. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a WP:FRINGE theory that such things exist. There are otherwise well respected scientists who believe that UFOs have visited earth and so forth, and this is the same sort of thing. Worrying pseudoscience with no basis in any research. Claritas § 12:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google news includes many things which are not reliable. Same with Google books and also "Psychotronics" turns up a lot in hits because it is a Russian term for parapsychology.[12] The only reliable sources do not even attempt to explain what Psychotronics in a "mind control" sense is or why it is included in the list of several items mentioned in the space preservation bill. The berkeleydailyplanet source doesn't go beyond quoting the bill when mentioning psychotronics, for example, and certainly does not suggest that "psychotronic mind control" weapons exist - it could be talking about mind control weapons in general or sonic weapons, which are well-established as causing a range of short and long-term neurological effects which could be classed as mood management or mind control. The controversial The Mosquito, for example, has had several human rights groups up in arms

It would require signifcant OR to make any conclusion about psychotronic mind control from these briefest of mentions. In other words, there is no article that can be written without significant OR and use of unreliable sources. GDallimore (Talk) 12:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd say redirect to mind control but I'm not convinced it's a plausible redirect. Article consists of little more than a dictionary definition, with a couple of random quotes suggesting the word is in use, although no-one seems to be able to give an example of what a psychotronic weapon is or how it might be constructed. Even those quotes are suspect; Vladimir Putin certainly never signed any law mentioning "psychotronics", unless Russia has suddenly adopted English as its national language. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fringe concept lacking coverage in reliable sources. There are a few reliable sources that use the word 'psychotronic' (like the LA Times article), but none that focus on the concept, or provide enough information to write more than a dictionary definition (which is what this basically is). I would say 'Redirect', except that this doesn't even seem like a plausible search term, and Psychotronics is already a redirect. Robofish (talk) 21:26, 4 June 2010 (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.