Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biocentric universe
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
— User:Dominus, 08:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:LOTSOFSOURCES (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)