Deletion of Biocentric universe

Comment: or '''Merge to Robert Lanza''': With exactly '''ZERO''' mention by independent scholars in the scholarly literature on philosophy and science, this theory is clearly not notable, even as fringe philosophy or science. Arguments for keep boil down to , none of which is a reliable source for philosophical or scientific theories. Mentions in pop-lit sources like Discover and Psychology Today attest perhaps to newsworthiness and public interest, but not to notability within the scholarly community or the world at large. These sources intend solely to provide their readers entertainment, and not reliable information on serious topics. They often publish entertaining material submitted by self-aggrandizing cranks, as seems to be the case here. Topic inherits no notability from its originator. Scattered, sporadic and unrealted mentions of the term in various other sources do not support the proposition that there is a notable topic here upon which to write a free-standing article. There is already a free-standing article for any notable uses of the term at Biocentrism (ethics
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LOTSOFSOURCES)

Comment: Obviously this article isn't getting deleted, but I'm concerned about the push to merge the article. The subject means GNG from the sources already in the article, and |notability is not temporary. To merge the article would make no sense, as this article is quite lengthy in comparison to the Lanza article and merging it would give undue balance to the subject of Biocentrism in Lanza's career if added to his page. That means a lot of this article would have to be removed (items that are well-sourced) in order to not create an undue balance to the subject in the Lanza article. It is a sneaky backdoor way of culling parts of the article, rather than letting it stand, in my opinion. Many of these arguments here are based on the faulty belief that academic articles are required to discuss a hypothetical situation, which is just not true. News sources are fine. It is also complete nonsense that a concept must have a lot of adherents to appear on Wikipedia; it just has to be notable. There seems to be a whole lot of  going on here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NOTTEMPORARY||WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: http://discovermagazine.com/2009/may/01-the-biocentric-universe-life-creates-time-space-cosmos Discover magazine published an article about biocentrism in 2009, http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/345809 Digital Journal published an article about it just last month, and http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/biocentrism Psychology Today publishes an ongoing series of articles on the topic (albeit penned by Lanza).  Coverage is non-routine, significant, and not limited to any specific timeframe such as circa 2006-2007.  Moreover, biocentrism is a philosophical concept, not a news item per se nor tied specifically to Lanza.  Via http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=biocentric+universe&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp= Google Scholar, I encountered some promising sources that don't seem directly associated with Lanza's work: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-007-1003-0_71http://books.google.com/books?id=M8wYPYrKnHgC&pg=PA42  I even found a paper stating that a "'biocentric' view of the universe" was proposed as far back as 1913 http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2832018 (although I don't know to what degree that may relate to this article).  It does seem to me though that the article should be expanded beyond Lanza's take on biocentrism, and perhaps even renamed to something like Biocentrism (philosophy).  In short, this topic appears to satisfy  apart from Lanza
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: I admit that I was somewhat hasty in composing my earlier "keep" vote and didn't look closely enough at some of the sources I found via a quick Google search.  However, after taking the time to give this a more careful consideration, my "keep" vote still stands.  This article is about a *concept* that impacts broadly on science, metaphysics and even theology/spirituality.  It is not an event, so the limitation that  imposes on duration of coverage cannot apply here.  As others have pointed out, the notability of a metaphysical concept is not temporary.  Moreover, a concept does not need to have extensive coverage in peer-reviewed journals to be notable according to WP's standards.   warns against accepting sources that are not reliable and may only have trivial mentions.  This AfD and the article's reference already contain multiple sources published by reliable media outlets that are independent and cover the topic at significant length.  Although not peer-reviewed, WP in general still accepts sources of this nature as reliable so long as the media outlet utilizes a system of editorial review and holds to professional journalism standards.  Finally, I located a few additional sources too that appear to be of good quality: A review of Lanza's version of biocentrism was penned by Dr. Vinod Kuma, an associate editor of the journal ''Phase Transitions,'' and posted on http://nirmukta.com/2009/12/14/biocentrism-demystified-a-response-to-deepak-chopra-and-robert-lanzas-notion-of-a-conscious-universe/ Nirmukta.  Other reviews were published in the http://henry.pha.jhu.edu/biocentrism.pdf ''Journal of Scientific Exploration'' (PDF file) and the http://www.jcer.com/index.php/jcj/article/download/67/57 ''Journal of Consciousness Exploration & Research''.  The Journal of Scientific Exploration|WP article about the ''Journal of Scientific Exploration'' states that it is peer-reviewed and the other aformentioned journal offers at least some degree of peer review http://www.jcer.com/.  Considering all these sources collectively, it is still my opinion that  is met
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTNEWS||WP:LOTSOFSOURCES||WP:GNG)

Comment: Seven days into the AfD, and, in spite of abundant Google dumping, still not a single word in a single source that can be considered reliable for either philosophical or scientific topics, and not a single source that can be used to establish notability, even as a fringe topic. The  provided attest only to limited and fleeting newsworthiness and popularity within the fringe community, but not at all to notability within the schoalrly philosophical or scientific communities, or to any lasting notability in the world at large. Still see nothing worth saving, and if the editors at the proposed merge target, Robert Lanza, agree that it doesn't belong there, there is no point in merging. Sorry, it's just a fart in the wind, like so many similar "theories of everthing" the WooWooSphere is littered with
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:LOTSOFSOURCES)