Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeodynamic principle

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--Ymblanter (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homeodynamic principle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of references using Google and if such principle exists, it may not establish notability. Also not mentioned on the discoverer's article.

This is probably the oldest hoax on Wikipedia, aged 9 years and 10 months, food for thought. The Snowager-is awake 14:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The IP who created this article only had 2 contributions, both from 2005.

Lastly, this page states a principal of the same name, but the book contains theories of from quantum to cosmic matter rather than psychology-related. The Snowager-is awake 14:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, this states the principal in Ackerman's point of view, but I'm on the fence whether if it is either a hoax or a stub failing notability as I could not verify. The Snowager-is awake 14:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think this is a hoax - it's referenced in this 1961 book. Someone needs to find Ackerman's 1958 book to confirm. This still might not be notable in itself and might need to be a redirect to the Ackerman page. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment Also referenced here, at page 27. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95 (Talk) 14:51, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a blatant hoax. None of what Google found can be verified as some of the search results even seem to be hoaxes-I wonder if they were published by the same user who created this page. Article now tagged with {{db-hoax}}. Shocked that this hoax was able to surrvive for nearly a decade. Maybe other reviewers and patrollers didn't know how to identify general Internet hoaxes, but I do. This blatantly does not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki you now, Wiki you later! (talk • contribs) 01:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is not a hoax, and I have declined the speedy, because although most of the search results are obvious WP mirrors, these two references: [1], [2] show that Ackerman did actually use this term. However, it evidently didn't catch on, so it is not notable; and we should not redirect to Ackermann because Googling the word shows that it is now used with other meanings - so many and so diverse that I do not think a useful article is possible. JohnCD (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. PianoDan (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2015 (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.