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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-04-28 07:37Z

Unicist ontology

[edit]

Somewhat disguised vanispamcruftisement for the Unicist Institute - check the history and the majority of external links in the articles. Don't think these are notable and widespread concepts either, with the phrase "unicist ontology" getting only 109 non-wiki ghits (let alone the sub-topics). MER-C 03:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - and please pardon my brevity in saying so. — Athænara ✉ 07:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and give me back the 10 minutes I just spent reading this gibberish and trying to find some reason to make a case for it. Self-referential spam for a sub-scientologist pseudophilosophy, apparently formed by cherry-picking the coolest-sounding bits of quantum mechanics whilst ignoring all context - iridescenti (talk to me!) 18:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete them all, as not notable, POV, COI autobiography, spam, and a weird mess. And it isn't even wrong. Bearian 18:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No reliable sources, no third-party commentary as to the importance of this material. EdJohnston 22:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing more than grammatically correct nonsense. Someguy1221 22:22, 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.