Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UNICE global brain project

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 all. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UNICE global brain project

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

I have no idea what this is really about. Most sources are primary, and the only sources that are independent are in the criticism section which, as pre-2010 sources "critiquing" a 2015-born project, sounds much of synthesis. Also bundling those "associated Wiki-UNICE topics" listed there, because I just have to ask did Wikipedia really allow this part to be on it. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 07:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as original synthesis as well as lacking notability. I can't find evidence of discussion of this in independent, reliable sources - zero relevant hits on Scholar (note: when doing your own searches, watch for false positives generated by the University of Nice Sophia Antipolis (unice.fr) and the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe; the three apparent hits you get when searching for "Universal Network of Intelligent Conscious Entities" all stem from authors having tried to look up the union acronym expansion - presumably via Wikipedia's disambiguation page - but having failed and picked the wrong one), and a handful of self-published hits on Google proper. One non-primary book hit - in a book marketed with "Can you put together the similarities and understand the TRUTH that organized religion and the government have sought to keep from us? Do you have the ears to HEAR?"...
And as pointed out, the only non-primary sources in the article are synthesis - various sources talking about a world brain, a global brain, AI or consciousness in general being synthesized into discussion about this non-notable concept instead.
As for the "Wiki-UNICE topics", WP:NOTWEBHOST. Kolbasz (talk) 09:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. Have also added Prod tag to Wiki-UNICE topic: U.S. Drug Policy. Lakun.patra (talk) 17:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - The main topic seems non-notable, while the subtopics aren't even encyclopedia articles. The subtopics in particular should be deleted per WP:NOT, as they are intended to be used for people to collaborate on finding solutions to problems. Those pages seem completely incompatible with Wikipedia's purpose as an encyclopedia, and with core policies such as WP:OR. Calathan (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - subjects in question have not received significant coverage in multiple non-primary reliable sources, thus not passing WP:GNG.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Save article - Delete the 4 related wiki-UNICE collaborative topics - split decision for me. I agree that the collaborative articles do not fit on Wikipedia. Rational wiki would be a good place for that. The UNICE global brain project is an interesting and potentially useful effort, however, and we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. The UNICE concept was written up and presented at a 2008 conference on consciousness, so it's been around and percolating for some time elikqitie (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)— Lynndunn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Save article - Delete others - I see everyone's point in deleting the collaborative articles, even though I posted them. However, please keep the encyclopedic-style main article.Rachelm9 (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)— Rachelm9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Save UNICE global brain project - Delete the wiki-topics - There is a place for the collaborative wiki-topics and it's a good idea to have something like this somewhere. However, I must agree with the consensus about deleting them because they do not fit the wiki guidelines. However, the article should be left alone (and perhaps cleaned up a bit) and there can be links to another type of wiki that allows users to work out solutions to public policy problems.Delhi3 (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)— Delhi3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: This probably belongs on a noticeboard (ANI?) as well, but the articles are apparently a concerted effort by the UNICE project itself (see also page 4 of the "founding article) - beware of canvassed and COI editors. Kolbasz (talk) 19:56, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Tagging three commenters as SPAs for articles relating to Michael E. Arth (the creator of UNICE). Kolbasz (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTWEBHOST and WP:N. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and not a generic online collaboration website as the people behind this seem to think. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. None of the articles meet WP:GNG--the only non-primary reliable sources I was able to find are about the broader topic of global brain, and we already have a page on that topic. Content in each article appears to be original research and synthesis, so it should be deleted until it gains sufficient notability. Shanata (talk) 09:17, 1 March 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.