Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autonomous sensory meridian response


 * 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 keep. WP:SNOW keep. There's no argument of a lack of notability, and the consensus is that other problems with the article are not so severe as to justify deletion. (non-admin closure) power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 01:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Autonomous sensory meridian response

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:TNT

The article is absolutely hopelessly pseudoscientific. I mean, it's own small one-paragraph section "clinical implications" states that "There is no scientific data nor any clinical trials showing evidence that might support or refute any clinical benefits or dangers of ASMR, with claims to therapeutic efficacy remaining based on voluminous personal anecdotal accounts by those who attribute the positive effect on anxiety, depression, and insomnia to ASMR video media"

Yet the rest of the article is written as if the ASMR and its claimed benefits are a fact Openlydialectic (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't agree with the reasoning provided to have the article deleted. Looks to me like it could use some work, but deletion is too far. Handoto (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 02:55, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep ASMR has received more than enough media attention for (in my opinion) it to exist as a Wikipedia article. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 03:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I am afraid you've misread the nomination, my friend. I am not proposing the articles deletion per lack of importance, I am proposing it per severe lack of anything encyclopedic within the article. It's so bad it reads like one of those antivaccer websites, only the topic's different Openlydialectic (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Yeah, but even so I dont think its enough... most of the articles fine and the problimatic stuff can easily be fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. The article is not "hopelessly pseudoscientific". I'm not sure if there is any pseudoscience in the article at all. Most of it discusses the history of discussions of the phenomenon, cultural influences, types of ASMR videos, etc. Only a very small portion of the article discusses any claimed therapeutic benefits or lack thereof. By all means, if you think the sourcing can be improved, improve it. But the idea that the article needs WP:TNT is absurd. For the most part it's well sourced. —Granger (talk · contribs) 05:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The article seems pretty bloated, but I don't think that justifies removing it entirely. ~ JoshDuffMan (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, even speedy keep. The subject is clearly notable. The article is definitely bloated and has some pseudoscience that needs to be trimmed, but since when is that a reason to nuke? WP:BEFORE clearly says "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD." That's definitely the case here. This article meets zero of the reasons over at WP:DEL-REASON. AfD is not for cleanup. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 21:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Easily passes notability; WP:BEFORE clearly in affect. Blackguard  17:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep, Deleting this entry isn't the answer. Only an article that was totally devoid of any factual content would be a candidate for that. Yes this needs some serious editing. Deleting the article in it's entirely is a misuse of the process.gregDT (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The phenomenon is very notable as evidenced by many sources and is worth keeping. Just needs a major clean-up.Omgwtfbbqsomethingrandom (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2018 (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.