Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O.Y.E. - The New Awareness

:{{la|O.Y.E. - The New Awareness}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O.Y.E. - The New Awareness}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|O.Y.E. - The New Awareness}})

This sounds like some movement of ill definition that the article's creator just came up with. Not much is really there for this one that explains why this movement is even notable. A few links to unrelated articles exist on the page. I can't even figure out what this is about! Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 18:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Strong delete. This reads like someones acid trip. Its got no relavance to anything, that I can figure out. The sooner its gone the better. Siind (talk) 18:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

First and foremost, thank you for responding to my new article submission. As this is my first article composed, I have been a fan of Wiki for quite a long time. As stated in the article this isn't a movement despite what Dennis as submitted, however the article is definitely in its first stages obviously as I have just only begun. the article will be about higher level thinking, individual awareness, the psychology of the mind and how it takes in and interprets data from its surrounding. All links added to the page directly relate to Awareness and Cognitive thinking and if given the opportunity to finish, I can assure you that the article will continue to fit within the realm of the Wikipedia policy. To Dennis's observation that perhaps the title is undefined and unclear however it was flagged for deletion in a little under two minutes of posting! LOL Its a work in progress, is there another way in which I should be doing this. I am completely open to suggestions and thank all who read this for your input including Dennis. Truthlivesinus (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

• Delete as original research. Truthlivesinus, the issue here is not whether the article is true, either for you or for others (it may well be a description of higher awareness which attracts people) , but whether it is VERIFIABLE. ideally, each expressed fact or opinion in an article can be sourced to a notable, reliable third party. nothing here is sourced to someone else. if alan watts, or krishnamurti, or sai baba, used "oye the new awareness" in a speech or interview, or if any of these ideas can be sourced to specific, notable people of "higher awareness", then those statements can be included in articles. if this whole essay can be sourced to someone other than yourself, say a well known book which tries to make these arguments, then the article can stand. If you are a fan of WP, you would know this. please dont take it personally when this is deleted (which it will be, and I know enough about this subject to know this essay is NOT from a reliable source). sincerely, Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete.WP:OR, WP:NOT#ESSAY. Truthlivesinus, to answer your question, you can create user subpages (e.g., :User:Truthlivesinus/The New Awareness) and work on articles without placing them in the main namespace. But keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a free webhost. If the subject isn't WP:N-notable, or the final draft of the subpage will not be able to pass WP:V, WP:NPOV or WP:NOT, you'll probably be wasting your time. — Rankiri (talk) 20:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. It's possible that sources exist, and I'm happy to switch to Keep if they are found, but I can't find evidence of them. Without an indication that the subject is sourceable, the article can't remain. If time for research would be helpful, there's no objection from me to userfication. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:28, 24 March 2010 (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.