Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microchakras

: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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Microchakras]]=

:{{la|Microchakras}} ([{{fullurl:Microchakras|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microchakras}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This article appears to be mainly a spam piece; but I was unsure. Therefore, I submit it the community.There are references which mention Chakra Pyschology; although, most appear to be based on this [http://www.innertuning.com/events-workshops.php this] website (from where some of the information is taken verbatim). There is [https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF00995818 this] journal which cites the Chakras; however, I am unqualified to judge its use as a reliable, third party source. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:11, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. A non-notable neologism, and given the apparent existence of commercial conflict of interest from the apparent only sources, original research as well. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a fringe, need pruning and other fixes, but deletion is not appropriate Power.corrupts (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete The article has such great problems in terms of OR, sourcing, neutrality, notability and even conflict of interest that it is very doubtful if it will ever meet Wikipedia standards. Nor does not seem likely it is a suitable basis for an eventual acceptable article. Tim Ross (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Articles reflect coverage in reliable sources ... - Eldereft (cont.) 06:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

: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.