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 delete. Mailer Diablo 18:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A rambling and immense diatribe of pseudoscience, conspiracy, and original research. Apparently is trying to reveal use of Scientology "technology" by the US government. While some people may have spent a long time on this, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Note that WP:NOR includes making controversial and non-obvious conclusions from synthesis of multiple sources. Delete --Philosophus ^T 22:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:NOR, and inherently not verifiable. Silas Snider (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Gamaliel 22:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Couldn't possibly say it better than the nominator. -- Kicking222 22:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR per nom. --BillC 23:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment It would be posible to right a remote viewing timeline (you base it around project stargate then move on to the various companies that surfaced after the US goverment wrote off stargate). This isn't it.Geni 02:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Das Nerd 03:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for being based on sources not considered reliable by our standards and for the synthesis clause of NOR. --Pjacobi 08:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anything verifiable is already in remote viewing, and it's hard enough to keep a lid on this crap in one place without adding more. No reliable sources, nor any realistic prospect of finding any. For the most part this is Hubbardcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 08:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and get a space ready at BJAODN. tregoweth 21:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete What I found here was a properly annotated timeline. I have searched in vain for any diatribe, opinion or speculation in its content. As a result, I'm left to ponder the reaction this document has produced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.32.192.7 (talk • contribs)
• Delete: Wikipedia is not a publisher of works of original fiction. --Carnildo 23:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Based on my 11+ years of study of Scientology and other pseudosciences including what paradoxers call Remote Viewing, I can state with high certainty that almost all, if not all, of the Scientology propaganda in this article is not only false but well-known to be false. The article also completely violate's Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View mandate. Also, almost all, if not all, of the Scientology propaganda in this article does not even belong in an article about Remote Viewing. The article should be deleted. Desertphile
• Do Not Delete The article is well-researched, but tends to go off-topic. There are some salient entries regarding Scientology's influence on the SRI work, and these should remain (and perhaps be augmented to show the direct connection). The conspiracy theory entries (i.e. US Gov vs Scientology) should be removed as off-topic. Having a timeline showing the origins of RV though, including the Scientology influence, is valuable. GreatGatzby 00:47am, 18 May 2006 (PDT)

• To whom? Just zis Guy you know? 17:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Anyone interested in an accurate timeline of RV. GreatGatzby 12:16pm, 18 May 2006 (PDT)

• Delete and Rewrite An accurate and succinct timeline of remote viewing would be completely appropriate, and a useful aid to the Remote viewing article. But glancing briefly at this timeline it seems to me that a) there is an incredible glut of information either too detailed for a general timeline or only tangentially related and b) any attempt to verify the multitude of questionable statements would be stopped simply because of the massive number of references (not that references are bad, but this amount harms more than helps). This would be great for a private website, but not wikipedia. Joshdboz 21:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support a Rewrite. GreatGatzby 05:20pm, 18 May 2006 (PDT)

• Just to clarify, when I said rewrite, I meant Start from scratch. Joshdboz 10:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is unsalvageable, full of distortions and misleading citations, and very much against WP:NOR. Also, please have a look at Remote Viewing and see what else this new user has done to what was a decent article, that covered as much as needed to be covered on that topic. Also please note one point that the original nominator might have missed - the vast bulk of this was created by a single user - User:Huntley Troth. Thanks. --NightMonkey 21:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Aren't you the original author of the article? Joshdboz 10:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I forgot to sign it - sorry! :( --NightMonkey 21:21, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. "Immense" doesn't even begin to describe this article: it's 144 kB, currently within the 100 longest articles on Wikipedia. This isn't a good reason to delete on its own, but the vast amount of original research makes it a definite delete. Zetawoof^(ζ) 21:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, and the author of the article wants it to be deleted (see above). RexNL 17:16, 20 May 2006 (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.