Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain Lock


 * 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 Redirect to Jeffrey_M._Schwartz. Natg 19 (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Brain Lock

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Neologism coined by one person and not notable elsewhere. Fails general notability guideline, no independent sources referring to this concept. Gccwang (talk) 08:09, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator in favor of redirect, based on discussion and new sources found by Tokyogirl79. Gccwang (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotion of a book that used this term in its title. Only reference is the book itself. Clever attempt to get single book into WP. LaMona (talk) 14:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete&mdash;Certainly no notability as a neologism. The book by the same title has attracted some amount of notice, but for a topic that falls into WP:MEDRS I'd like to see more than reviews in blogs.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm leaning towards a merge/redirect in this instance. I'm finding some coverage for his overall ideas, but not a lot of coverage for the specific term per se. There is some coverage like this article, but not enough to where I think that this would merit anything other than a subsection in the author's article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Jeffrey_M._Schwartz. I actually did manage to find quite a bit of coverage for the term as a whole. It's sort of used to refer to Schwartz's concept of OCD as well as the treatment plan as a whole, so it's not entirely a neologism. In any case, I found some fairly extensive mention of the term in various books and/or extensively used as a reference so it is worth a mention somewhere. I'd personally recommend a redirect to the author's page over keeping the article separate, as there's not a huge-huge amount of coverage. It could and should be more fleshed out by someone more familiar with the concept as a whole, though. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * * Comment A redirect would be reasonable as this is primarily Schwartz's concept. Gccwang (talk) 18:05, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Jeffrey_M._Schwartz per Tokyogirl79's source finds. The term is verifiable but I haven't found any further RS to demonstrate notability independent of the author. It is a reasonable search term, so a redirect is warranted. --Mark viking (talk) 18:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A redirect makes sense to me too, I guess. --Gccwang (talk) 03:12, 7 September 2014 (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.