Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of HeartMath


 * 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. Consensus is that the sources provided are tangential. Spartaz Humbug! 06:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Institute of HeartMath

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Non-notable fringe organisation. No reliable sources. Fails WP:SPAM, WP:RS andy (talk) 08:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: the references have been changed in response to this AfD but I see no reason to remove the nomination. There are currently 12 references: #1 and #6 are written by the Institute; #2 and #3 are merely records of grant applications; #4 appears to be self-published; #5 is a "brief report" in a reputable journal dating from 15 years ago and is probably not peer reviewed; #7 and #8 are articles in a fringe journal; #9 is self-published; #10 appears to be an article in a fringe magazine; #11 is a press release; #12 is a brief mention on a populist TV programme. andy (talk) 23:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being specific. Let me give you a brief explanation of the references.
 * Reference #1 is a brief explanation of the Institute of HeartMath (IHM) by the founder of IHM. It's not even a debate that IHM is a nonprofit research and education organization.
 * &#35;6 is a quote from that same book where the president of the Omega Institute talks about IHM research.
 * Not a reliable source. andy (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * &#35;2&3 are records to prove that IHM is federally funded and approved by the U.S. Congress to carry on their research. Why is this an issue? Should I just remove the references all together and let the statement stand?
 * A grant application does not prove notability, which is the issue here andy (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * &#35;4 The U.S. Department of Education funded IHM to carry on the TestEdge National Demonstration Study, therefore references should be from IHM.
 * &#35;5 is peer-reviewed - no doubt. http://www.ajconline.org/
 * No, full articles are fully peer reviewed but, in common with most journals, brief reports, case studies etc are not. See here. #5 relates to a brief report and has therefore not been fully reviewed. andy (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * &#35;7 and #8 are also internationally peer-reviewed and the Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine is not a fringe journal.
 * &#35;9 is a reference that Princeton University's Global Consciousness Project lists the Global Coherence Initiative as a collaborator. What is the problem here?
 * It's not "Princeton University's Global Consciousness Project". See here - "the GCP... is not a project of Princeton University." This is not a reliable source. andy (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * &#35;10 I might have to use another source, yet the reference is still correct. Princeton Universities Global Consciousness Project team supports GCI's hypothesis.
 * It's not "Princeton University's Global Consciousness Project". andy (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * &#35;11 is certainly a press release from the International Consumer Electronic Show announcing the winner of the online Last Gadget Standing award. This is a huge recognition, and a press release from CES is prefect for such an announcement.
 * &#35;12 is a synopsis of behavioral psychologist, Deborah Rozman, Ph.D., explaining how to use the emWave on national television.
 * Not a reliable source. andy (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Content586 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —andy (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —andy (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not clear what the article is about, but if it's about the institute, there are no independent reliable sources supporting notability; if it's about the theory, it's WP:FRINGE not backed up by reliable sources either, as noted by andy. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you both. I see what needs to be done. I will write this again with independent sources and studies only. Content586 (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, Content586. I'm curious as to how you are so well-informed about the IHM&mdash;what is your position with the Institute? Duoduoduo (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep: Google Scholar lists plenty of unaffiliated and respectable academic references to the institute, so RS notability is achievable.  Deletion is not cleanup. K2709 (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If, unlike the original author, you are able to find reliable sources please add them as references to the article! andy (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't really have time to scour articles, but at random I've dug up proof of Wall-Street Journal and police interest to be getting on with. Plenty of people are writing about the place, so it has notability for that alone, and it very verifiably exists.  What they actually do there or if it's peer reviewed or fringe or not is just the subject of a critique section, it shouldn't affect the existence of the article.

http://www.macquarieinstitute.com.au/pdfs/Are_You_Stressed_Out_Yet.pdf and http://www.emich.edu/cerns/downloads/papers/PoliceStaff/Shift%20Work,%20%20Stress,%20%20Wellness/The%20Maintenance%20of%20Police%20Officer%20Health%20through%20a%20Mandatory%20Wellness%20Program.pdf K2709 (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The first of these appears to be a legit Wall Street Journal article that mentions HeartMath on pp. 3-4 of 4 pages. The second of these is a 30-page report by someone in a sheriff department, that mentions HeartMath on page 13 and again on pp. 23-24.  Both seem legitimate.  Duoduoduo (talk) 00:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No doubt, but a passing mention is not adequate for proving notability.The IHM has to be the subject of the articles.. andy (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

A few more references from a quick google-scholar search:
 * http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public/PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-HFM-181/MP-HFM-181-14.doc
 * This one is a report to NATO by someone in the French military. The abstract says "The Institute of HeartMath® has also developed techniques for enhancing heart/brain synchronization (Heart Coherence; Cardiac Coherence (CC)), leading to a state of autonomic nervous system balance function that is correlated with improved cognitive function and health-related outcomes. The aim of this study is to evaluate the benefits of the use of these two practical tools for military pilots on conducting operational activities." So this article is specifically about HeartMath's technique (as well as someone else's technique).  But as Radagast3 points out below, a source being about the Institute's theories is not the same thing as it being about the Institute itself, which is what the proposed Wikipedia article is about. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ies/article/view/4834/4660
 * This is a paper by some Malaysian academics. The paper cites in passing three in-house papers from HeartMath. Duoduoduo (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/display/article/10168/1147451
 * This article can only be accessed by registered members of the website&mdash;no good, I think. Duoduoduo (talk) 00:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.getrealandheel.com/pdf/finding%20a%20new%20normal%20-%20groff%20et%20al,%202009.pdf Content586 (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is certainly plenty of independent sources and no doubt about that. I just need to take more time to gather them all. Your contributions are much appreciated. Is it okay to directly reference the institute's Website, since this is an article about the institute? I've seen this done with other published Wikipedia articles, that's why I ask. Content586 (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Content586, I'd still like to know what affiliation, if any, you have with the Institute of HeartMath. Thanks.  Duoduoduo (talk) 00:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  12:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There seems to be confusion as to whether the article is about the Institute or about the Institute's theories. Some of the sources given above relate to the one, some to the other. In either case, notability would require independent and reliable sources. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 01:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete, for two reasons. (1) There appear to be no sources about the Institute itself; rather they are about the Institute's technique(s).  (2) Despite two requests, the author of the article has failed to say whether he/she has an affiliation with the Institute; so I conclude that he/she probably does.  Therefore there is a conflict of interest.


 * I think an acceptable article could be written, by someone not affiliated with the Institute, about a key technique espoused by the Institute. The title of the article would be the name of the technique.  Duoduoduo (talk) 14:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That was my thought too. I have heard of HeartMath, although I have never checked it out. I am sure readers will be much more interested in that than in the details on the institute. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Non notable fringe organization; I doubt an article on the technique will hold up as notable, but no reason not to give it a try.   DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. Trying to understand why you think this organization is a non notable fringe organization. I have been following with interest their work for the last 6 years. I first learned about the organization from a Dr. at Wake Forest University. I was interested in heart rate variability (HRV) and he gave me a copy of an article on their work published in the American Journal of Cardiology.  The article was not about the Institute of HeartMath, but about a research study they carried out on HRV.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Williammichaels (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is the point made earlier: no evidence that this institution is notable, despite the possible (and non-inheritable) notability of some work by people who are now associated with it. andy (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment.I am still a bit confused about what qualifies as notable. I decided to call the organization and see if i could learn more about them. I spoke with a Bryan Kaybaker who was quite forth coming. I specifically asked him about their research studies and were they peer reviewed. He talked me through the research section of their web site, and I did find that they had several peer reviewed studies ranging from Emotional Stress, Positive Emotions and Psycholphysiological Coherence to Impact of Workplace Stress Reduction...Blood Pressure. He also told me (unverified) that their was an control study on ADHD being published in the peer reviewed Journal of Alternative Therapies. He said it would be available in mid July. I did look on the Journals web site, but they did not have the July issue up yet. I will check back with the Journal in a week to see if in fact what the gentleman said was true. My point in all of this is that their research seems very notable and that wiki users have the right to know about it.  Let them decided for themselves. I see no reason to delete their article.  However that being said, the part about the Technology and Consumer electronics show and Dr.s TV show seems inappropriate and i recommend that it be removed.Williammichaels (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC) — Williammichaels (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 12.54.126.130 (talk) 17:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.126.130 (talk) 17:21, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

One was from NBC World News, which was mainly focused on the Institute of Heartmath and their research, the other was ABC Today Show with Mat Lauer, that was on was about the heart and emotions and talked about the research of the Institute of Heartmath and did a short interview with their Rollin McCraty(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT5kHw3D7Fk&feature=related). I was also as able to confirm what the Institute representative told me about a new peer reviewed article about Heartmath interventions being used with children diagnosed with ADHD. While the July-August issue of Alternative Therapies was not yet available, they have a link on their site to the peer reviewed Randomized Controlled Trial article title- Coherence Training in Children With Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: Cognitive Functions and Behavioral Changes: http://www.alternative-therapies.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/Content.Main/id/73/scribd. In light of of this, does anyone feel the organization is non-notable?
 * Comment- I apologize for taking so long to re-enter the discussion. I wasn't trying to hide my identity. I virtually volunteer for the organization, and I wasn't trying to cause a conflict of interest. I learned about IHM about a year ago and I've never even visited their organization, but I certainly am a huge advocate for how much they help people. I won't deny that. I was also wondering why they didn't have a Wikipedia page, so I took it unto myself to do it. Content586 (talk) 15:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC) — Content586 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment.I did find a few videos on You Tube that may be notable.

I still think the the part of the entry about Technology and emwave/consumer electronics is too much like an advertisement, and that wiki readers would be more interested in knowing about the scope of their peer reviewed research. Perhaps listing the various studies along with verifiable citations would be a much better use of article. Williammichaels (talk
 * 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.