Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structure of Interactive Psycho Philosophy
Someone's crackpot theory. Patent nonsense. Delete. jni 16:19, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete Deus Ex 17:27, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete original (if derivative) research. New Agecruft. Fire Star 19:15, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Mr. Pfennigschmidt (is that name for real? :) will be welcome to post a neutral description of his theories here if they ever gain some measure of recognition. —No-One Jones (m) 19:20, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, though I'd pay to see a debate between this fellow and the Time Cube guy. Smerdis of Tlön 19:21, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Ornil 19:23, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete- no evidence of notability (only Google hit are the webpage and tise wikipedia article). --Cje 22:05, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not notable enough. If it gains some followers someday, perhaps re-add then. --Improv 22:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Do not delete. I am bernhard pfennigschmidt and I worked 17 years to get this together. This is definitively not a crackpot theory. It is definitively not mainstream. There are not enough people working on the basics of DNA.
- Delete. Either a non-notable crackpot theory or a prank/hoax. Whoever wrote it should compare notes with Gene Ray. — Gwalla | Talk 02:24, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Patent nonsense presented as fact. Possible BJAODN candidate (but I'll pass once again). Delete. -- Mike Rosoft 12:39, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I'd accept an article on any concept, no matter how lunatic, if it had adherents, but this doesn't appear to have any. The article at the moment gives no evidence of notability, and far from mainstream theories need to be very careful in showing why they aren't crackpot - which this article currently fails to do. Average Earthman 13:15, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. RustyCale 00:11, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)