Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thoughtform

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 keep.--Fuhghettaboutit 11:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughtform

I nominate this page for deletion on grounds that it is bollocks. If I'd seen when it was first created, I'd have speedied it for nonsense. I prodded it, but User:B9 hummingbird hovering, the nearly-exclusive author of the page, objected. Hence the AfD. Michaelbusch 16:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be bollocks but it is notable. Arrow740 17:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not clear to me, probably because the text is so incoherent. Michaelbusch 17:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that large portions of the article run very close or over the limits allowed by the ArbCom Decision on Pseudoscience. Michaelbusch 17:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete An WP:SYN collection of various ideas that are like this author's idea of "Thoughtform (TM)" all welded together into a novel synthesis. I see no WP:RS documenting the notability of the thesis, as advanced here in this article, as having an independent existence outside Wikipedia. "It is contended that a meme is not a thoughtform, though it may be deemed an informative correlation.", yeah, right. Even the "Thought Form" book does not appear to be about "Thoughtform". A properly sourced article on tulpa would be a good thing, but this is just not an encyclopedia entry, it's an OR essay. Pete.Hurd 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (god help me). Yes, it reads to me like WP:BOLLOCKS but so do Eucharist, Xenu and Dharma. As far as I can tell - and I'm not any kind of expert here - this isn't OR or WP:SYN but a straightforward explanation of a belief - if there's any Bön practitioner reading this (we must have some), hopefully they can clarify that. I do agree that the stuff about Annie Besant and the Gaia hypothesis do have a strong whiff of OR about them and should be cut unless someone can provide evidence that someone else makes the comparison, but that's not grounds for deleting the whole thing - iridescenti (talk to me!) 19:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I objected, not User:B9 hummingbird hovering, so don't blame him/her. It needs repair, not deletion. The subject is notable, and poor as it may be, this is the only information currently available on the topic. DrGaellon (talk | contribs) 21:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the only information currently available, then how is it notable? If you mean 'the only information currently available on Wikipedia', that is somewhat different, but I'm still not convinced of WP:N, simply because the text is so incoherent. I've been reviewing the references as well, and some do not meet the reliability guidelines. Michaelbusch 21:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some refs seem reliable: One is by Simon & Schuster, and one by Shambhala, a reputable publisher for the subject. But I think the word in English is probably a neologism, and the article should be renamed to Tulpa, which is currently a redirect. DGG 06:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is confusing, but is in need of heavy editing, not deletion. The concepts are interesting and informative, and the author's take on the topic unusual but not OR. (See further comments by me in its discussion page.) Quacksalber 00:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is in need of some editing, but I don't see where it's unusable. It calls into mind a practice that is plausible, has been used in popular literature, and isn't just crap. jwhouk 05:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are lots of books on this topic, both non-fiction and fiction. It's a notable, well documented idea. You can't delete articles on the basis of crackpot qualities of the idea. If an idea is notable, it is notable regardless of whether it was cooked up by crackpots or not. Perhaps it is even notable because it draws crackpots like flies to honey. See Aura, Bigfoot, Loch Ness monster and so forth. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:23, 28 April 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.