Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been marked as needing an infobox.

Anthroponymy Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthroponymy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the study of people's names on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthroponymyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthroponymyTemplate:WikiProject AnthroponymyAnthroponymy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I knew this would attract a deletion attempt. Well done to User:Dipics for getting in there so quick. This is not however a "speedy" candidate, unless I misunderstand something about the speedy policy - this is apparently a kosher theory, although I suspect it will prove to be complete bollocks.

I'm removing the speedy tag - but feel free to nominate it for AfD. SP-KP 18:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Fang Aili you beat me to it and stopped me from acting "out of process" by removing the tag myself. User:Dipics, I see you are relatively new - please look up the definition of patent nonsense. SP-KP 18:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an average person, "patent nonsense" is exactly what this theory strikes me as. FireWeed 20:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that that is because you are not familiar with the meaning of "patent nonsense" in this context. Please consult Wikipedia:Patent nonsense. -- Dominus 21:47, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is utter drivel. Just delete it.

Why?

Why does a single study published 8 years ago and then refuted get an article on wikipedia? Maybe we should link this article to the 300 page iphone bill article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.79.178.182 (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]