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. - Mailer Diablo 09:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telepathic internet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article has no relevant references and appears to represent original research. WWGB 03:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 12:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not cited to any reliable sources, and seems unlikely to have such sources added. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and as per above. Qiock internet search finds no relevant sources, not that I expected any. DES ^(talk) 12:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It's author claims here: "My intention in writing this article is (metaphorically speaking) to plant a seed. I would appreciate it if a place could be found for the article other than the deletion file (articles for deletion). I reccognise that it may not get a lot of use immediately, but if left to germinate and be discovered by web-browsing spiritualists, it could grow into something wonderful in a few years time." - in other words, this is OR that the author hopes will become mainstream as a consequence of being 'germinated' here. Non-encyclopeadic. Non-notable. OR and POV. No sources. Delete this sucker ASAP. SteveBaker 12:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If there's a telepathic internet, let the author post the article there. Clarityfiend 14:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete as unsourced, OR, and borderline nonsense. Reads like an advertisement. Author admits to crystal-ballism. Speedy delete if at all possible. DarkAudit 14:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unsourced, original research, and highly improbable. - Eron ^Talk 14:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete original research, not notable, unsourced. I'm tempted to say speedy delete as nonsense. Hut 8.5 15:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; this entire article consists of a very forced analogy (most people's of experience their ISP is anything but Heaven/Nirvana!). It's also borderline spam (it plugs a plant perception website and a "telepathic internet café") (CSD G11) and parts of it are irredeemably flawed (sadly "dolfins and other animals" are not reliable sources). Laïka 15:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced nonsense. --ElKevbo 16:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unproven so not encyclopedic - Adrian Pingstone 16:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The telepathic internet is down, so I had to put in my vote by keyboard. NawlinWiki 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Entirely consists of original research that is, in general, impossible to prove, and seems to be more of a joke than anything. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Huh? --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 02:54, 27 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.