Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hemi-Sync


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:48, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hemi-Sync

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject is not notable and appears to promote a product, which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. AUN4 (talk) 22:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy keep: 1) There are ample (3rd party) references in the news articles, books and scholar link bar above that demonstrate notability. 2) I have deleted advertising copy from this article before but don't see rampant promotion currently. Article deletion would be complete overkill. I suggest moving whatever individual sentences are deemed promotional to the talk page, where they can be objectified with references or lost as appropriate. K2709 (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

1st AfD material:
 * AfD initiated by 119.12.40.197: "Proposing article for deletion as it presents scientifically unsound information as sound, refers entirely to a commercial product, and references [from? to?] the vendor of that product"


 * Speedy keep: invalid reasons for deletion.


 * 1) "Scientifically unsound": This isn't a researched viewpoint. Here's a paper from another field that finds it sound for example.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14742401?dopt=AbstractPlus


 * 2) "refers entirely to a commercial product": Untrue.  The article mentions only the name of a technology, not one single product.  It doesn't even omit competing technologies like Holosync.  Besides, even if product names were plastered all over it, that's not grounds for deletion - commercial products such as books, videos and music CDs are entirely valid Wikipedia article subjects.


 * 3) Stating the originator of a technology isn't an AfD matter. If the problem is lack of third party references, the solution is merely to find some.  Dig out the 1994 Wall Street Journal article where Kai Sui Fung talks about it for example.  K2709 (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  SilkTork  *Tea time 09:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:11, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not clear about the focus of this article. It appears that hemispheric-synchronised sounds is a viable topic, but this article focuses on the product which uses hemispheric-synchronised sounds. I feel that a change of title to Hemispheric-synchronised sounds, and moving the article to an explanation of the use of hemispheric-synchronised sounds would be of value. I don't think that deleting the article is appropriate, given the scholarly sources - but a rewrite would be appropriate.  SilkTork  *Tea time 09:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Why was this relisted? I don't understand.— S Marshall  T/C 11:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Looks like it has clearly received non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Qrsdogg (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2011 (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.