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 of the debate was no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neurophone[edit]

Prod contested. User:Tenebrous says: "factually dubious, not notable, advertisement". It's about electronic telepathy. I can't really tell if it deserves an article. The concept appears to pre-exist the article. NickelShoe 18:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Seems to get good Google coverage... by pseudoscience websites. Let's note the dubious efficacy of this device in the article and move on. Sandstein 19:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's nothing to suggest that anything related to this subject is factual or notable, and I've yet to see anything on the subject that could be considered a reliable source. How do we know this device even exists? This article will likely never be anything more than a stub; there's just not enough context. The originator of this device, however, is a bit more notable as a crank, but only a little bit more so; I'd probably oppose an article on him. An article on pseudoscientific mind-related devices, I could see. This particular one, no. Tenebrous 22:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Tenebrous, read the life magazine article about the patent and the deaf guy at the patent office. Now, tell me where you made up "nothing." Your vote for AFD is frivolous. --JimmyT 11:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Try and keep it civil. haz _(user talk)^e 14:03, 17 March 2006

• Keep --JimmyT 11:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC) JimmyT (talk · contribs) is the article's author.[reply]
• Keep but needs to be expanded. Garglebutt / (talk) 12:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Please expand the article, though. haz _(user talk)^e 14:03, 17 March 2006
• weak keep Seems to exist, disclaims accepted by mainstream science, seems interesting. RJFJR 14:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup or delete. Article's author keeps editing the article to make it falsely look as if no one disputes that this device does what it is claimed to.[1][2][3][4] -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: And again. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice try Antaeus, next time prepare yourself better. See the discussion and please provide intelligent discourse. --JimmyT 20:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - But rewrite as historical device rather than feasible relevant technology.
  • As an engineer (and a Tufts Alum <g>), I read the article carefully, and purused the Talk as well. I certainly don't see much about credible scientific studies supporting the claim that it actually does pass intellegence directly into the brain (presumably by electromagnetic induction acting upon electrical charges involved in neuron discharge). However, that mechanism (i.e. affecting brain currents) is certainly concievable as CAT/NMRI scan technologies have some similarities, and it is accepted knowledge (shrug) that cell phones, walkie-talkies, etc. (and other EMI fields) do cause some brain damage given LONG TERM and EXCESSIVE use by adverse effects on said current flow, so I surmise that the technology is premature, may just be in it's infant stage (Like semiconductors back in 1910-1920 period—  No one could figure out what to do with them yet. We all own thousands of transistors these days!) But bottom line, the device was given a patent in modern times. That's notable enough to deserve space as an historical article. Lastly, I remember the term back from when I was but a wee Lad. Perhaps the article should be modeled more on phrenology, i.e. a theory about the device.
• Hope someone stops the edit war noted above by one of it's partisans! Perhaps a lock on the article while this process completes would be in order? FrankB 17:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea Fabartus and take a look at the lame basis for the dispute. Just make sure Antaeus doesn't get it locked AFTER he edits it. --JimmyT 20:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems notable. The answer to the edit war is WP:DR, not AFD. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup or delete per above. Time is ticking. — Mar. 20, '06 [00:07] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

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.