Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainwave entrainment


 * 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. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 20:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Brainwave entrainment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A dozen years ago this was kept after a debate with three participants. It has not improved since. I mean, really, not. It now reads much more like a paean to a fringe idea than it used to, and the entire thing looks to have been distilled from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 19:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Follows a familiar recipe for a horrid sundae of fail: mishmash one part WP:OR with two parts WP:FRINGE and add a healthy sprinkle of non-WP:RS on top. There is no reason under any notability guideline or WP:V to keep this. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Brainwave entrainment seems to be something that is widely studied in the literature.  A scholar search reveals many articles published in peer reviewed literature (in good journals too, not just the usual trawl of Beall's list), for example: an article in the journal Neuroscience letters, an article in Physical review letters (!), an article in Scientific American (!).  There are quite a few other sources that would need to be investigated, but there is plenty of secondary literature that amply meets even the most stringent sourcing policies and guidelines, to draw from here.  The article should definitely make accurately representing the secondary literature on the subject more of a priority, but this is a topic for which there is an abundance of independent sourcing in good academic places with proper peer review on which to draw.  AfD is not cleanup.  (I am very busy IRL, but would gladly volunteer to help clean this up when I am less busy.)   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 22:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per SB. Bad articles are to be improved, not deleted. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 12:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Defenders keep claiming that secondary sources exist, and all the article needs is a good cleanup, but it's been over a decade and the article remains an unreadable, jargon-filled distillation of primary sources.  If it's fixable, it needs to be fixed, already. If not, we need to get rid of it.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  13:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)



 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep – Meets WP:N. Yes, the article needs copy editing, but it is a notable topic. This is also referred to as "Brainwave synchronization" and "Neural entrainment". North America1000 01:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. K2709 (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep [ptential for improvement. `` — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
 * The message is truncated; was there something you wanted to add in the opened quotes ? — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 08:45, 14 April 2017 (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.