Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain Center International


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 05:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Brain Center International

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Looks like advertizing. Asserted that it has been featured on various morning talk shows but the claims aren't cited. Nominated for speedy but it looked borderline to me, so I'm kicking it up to you guys. I don't have any vote. Ryan Delaney talk 08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete It's absurd that anyone can plop a two-sentence advert with a link to their website on Wikipedia and then we have to go look for sources and debate how important it may or may not be. This is pure spam and should be speedied. Drawn Some (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, Speedy Delete as spam, with extra spanking for bad grammar. Hairhorn (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The question is not whether the initial version of an article is a terrific encyclopedia article, full of references and completely "nonpoint of view," but whether the subject is verifiable and notable with reliable and independent sources which would allow an encyclopedic article to be written. This company and its products have had some such coverage, such as The Globe and Mail, which verifies the appearances on TV shows happened. This article also includes criticism of the company, which should be included. We do not only have articles about effective products; the caveats in the Globe and Mail article are worth noting. Google News Archive has 32 articles, but many have expired links or are in French or require payment to view them. There does appear to be enough reliable and independent sourcing, such as, for an article to be developed. Edison (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just took this as a speedy delete G11 case (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). I didn't really consider verifiabilty or notability. But note that even the Globe article expresses doubts about their product. I've peeked through some of the French articles; many of them are press releases, several more are just mentions. There may be notability in there, but I'm staying neutral for the moment. Hairhorn (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentRemember that an article about something is not an endorsement of its medical effectiveness, just that it has been talked about by multiple reliable and independent sources. Edison (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, you're right. But if it's a scam product, that might affect notability, unless it becomes notable as a scam. Hairhorn (talk) 12:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 *  Very weak keep A search learns that it is published in bits and pieces on some semi reliable sources. Other pages covering it are semi-spam, but still i would give it the benefit of doubt - for now. At the very least its not a CSD G11 - by far. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 21:41, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless notability can be sourced, and then only with a rewrite to pull out the feel of an advert.Tyrenon (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as poorly written spam. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:00, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is basically an ad. The only legitimate source is the Globe & Mail article, which by itself isn't enough. The other google hits appear to be press releases.  freshacconci  talk talk  11:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete As unverifiable spam. Hipocrite (talk) 19:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete All the English news sites list the same exact article. Apparently its a scam.  The only reason to have an article on this, would be to warn people of it being bullshit.  But there isn't enough information out there for a proper referenced article saying that, so just delete it.   D r e a m Focus  07:23, 30 May 2009 (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.