Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electromagnetic brain animation


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Electromagnetic brain animation

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable product from a non-notable company. 14 unique google hits (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Electromagnetic+brain+animation%22+-wikipedia&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N) not counting wikipeda and its mirrors. No article links to this page, no categories for this article. FateClub 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,


 * Delete nn and does not pass google test.--Joebengo 18:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wouldn't the notability of this type of procedure be established in medical journals, which are usually not archived for free on the web? Also, there is now a category for this article. It was just tagged in February and we at project uncategorized are just getting to February due to a big backlog.  I say hold on to this one.  Scarykitty 05:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm part of the categorization project and whenever I see an article that is not categorized but is not notable I tag it. Some of these are not categorized because people do not care much about them. And in some cases it is because the subject is simply not notable. Like this one. That's why I say it should be deleted. --FateClub 05:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete In response to scarykitty's comment above (and related request on the neuroimaging talk page for outside opinions here), there is no discussion of "Electromagnetic Brain Animation" in the medical literature. Furthermore, the proposed mechanism of therapeutic action presented here and on the associated webpage is not credible.  For future reference, abstracts to medical articles can be viewed freely by the public on PUBMED at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/.  sallison 02:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * delete. . Mukadderat 17:21, 13 April 2007 (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.