English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Memory for the future

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. Really quite clear from the discussion that that this is an OR/SYNTH cruftfest; the only "keep" opinion makes as little sense as the article. Editorially redirected to Prospective memory. Sandstein 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Memory for the future

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

The topic of this article , "Memory for the future", is not a phrase which is anywhere discernible in any of the sources cited. Nor does it seem to exist as a term on a Google search (except in the present WP article), and the topic therefore cannot qualify under WP:NOTABILITY, being not verifiable. See also WP:ARTN - Article content does not determine notability. The article itself is long and rambling, extending to a variety of issues including evolution, burial of goods by the ancient Egyptians, and extensive other irrelevant matter, and reads more like an essay of the sort ruled out by WP standards. It would seem that this is a non-topic or fraudulent topic invented by the original editor, and it is indeed difficult to discern from the article exactly what the topic may even mean. Insofar as it means anything, it contains in some parts speculations about the nature of forecasting (which is nowhere referred to by the sources cited as 'memory for the future'). Very little or anything seems to link to the article save via the Human Memory template in which the topic is included. Therefore delete as non-notable, pseudo-scientific rambling or hoax. Smerus (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: To the extent that the article has any meaning at all, it duplicates the properly constructed and referenced and WP:NOTABLE article Prospective memory.So maybe delete and redirect to Prospective memory.--Smerus (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete. Essay chock-full of OR and SYNTH. --Randykitty (talk) 08:56, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nakon 01:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete: per nominator, that is a poor fork or duplicate of Prospective memory that is not supported by sources. Maybe not original research in a strict sense, but certainly synthesis. I do not quite see anything worth merging. Tigraan (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep. It is a good and interesting article not found anywhere else, important facts abound. --Hash Tag 444 (talk) 22:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment I hope that you realize that !votes that are not policy-based (like yours: see WP:ILIKEIT) are bound to be ignored by the closing admin... --Randykitty (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Another comment - btw, Hash Tag 444 has attempted to 'assist' this debate by removing the AfD template from the article (now restored thanks to bot).--Smerus (talk) 04:24, 28 April 2015 (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.