Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucid dreaming mask


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Lucid dreaming mask

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pseudoscientific device. No reliable references. Classic case of pseudoscience and used to promote commercially available products. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  03:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * delete I got no convincing book hits, not even in pseudoscience works. Web hits were all promotional or incidental (e.g. a number of articles on kickstarter being used to fund development). Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pseudoscientific promotional rubbish. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Promotional junk. Out. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * keep Poorly written stub needs some time to develop. If you remove over-hyped Remee from the search you still get 73,500 results [] Bhny (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Are there independent reliable sources which critically analyse the topic? IRWolfie- (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * CBS[], cnet[] Bhny (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The CBS title is "Ways people claim they can control their dreams" and the cnet description is: "Kickstarter backers are big dreamers. The Remee Lucid Dreaming Mask is racking up the pledge dollars by offering a way to help you control your nighttime mental ramblings." Both are sensationalist ramblings by non-experts and the cnet link is just promotional junk for the company which promotes this WP:FRINGE pseudoscientific product. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  16:04, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep I largely agree. The CBS piece appears to mostly be not about the device, and the Crave blog is uncritical. This looks like standard news coverage, but not something with enduring notability (per WP:NOTNEWS), particularly considering an apparent lack of critical assessment. Consider that the CNET piece does not really say anymore than a press release would (fine churnalism). IRWolfie- (talk) 16:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I fully agree. Just look at the conclusion of the cnet piece: "I'm guessing Remee might not work for everyone, but it may be the extra nudge some sleepers need to start dabbling in lucid dreaming. You will have to wait until it ships in July to try it for yourself. After you get your Remee, please remember to give me a helping hand if you're flying over and see me being attacked by zombies. I'd appreciate it." If this is the level the RS have come to we might as well close shop from now. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  16:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Greetings everyone! I see that people are claiming that it's pseudoscience. Now my English isn't my native language, but if I have understood correctly, pseudoscience is like a science which is just speculation? If so, then you are wrong. Stephen LaBerge, Ph.D. has scientifically proved and tested the lucid dreaming mask. You can also read about his lucid dreaming mask on his Wikipedia page. Also I'm not trying to advertise any products. I'm just interested in lucid dreams and thats why I wanted to make article about lucid dreaming mask. The reason why I added few brands to the article is because some of the lucid dreaming masks are just "timers", such as Remee, so that people don't mix the timers with the real deal, such as NovaDreamer, REM-Dreamer, etc. Also about the references. I know, Wikipedia needs sources, but at this subject it's very hard to find any reliable sources about lucid dreaming or especially about lucid dreaming masks, but I personally think that even if the device such as lucid dreaming mask is quite rare, it should be acceptable to Wikipedia, since it's not just 1 product made by 1 person, but there are several products of the same genre. They are also called sometimes "lucid dreaming induction device", which include more then only masks. And I do have at the moment x2 sources in my article, not sure how reliable they are but to me they seem fine. Shouldn't two be enough? Best regards. PS: I will try to find more sources. --Pek (talk) 16:54, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Stephen LaBerge, Ph.D. has scientifically proved and tested the lucid dreaming mask No. He has not. Science does not work like that. LaBerge, no matter how many PhDs he has, must publish his mask results in reliable peer-reviewed scientific journals and if after the review they get accepted for publication then you can use this research as a source. Otherwise it is mere fringe speculation. Please see also WP:FRINGE and WP:REDFLAG. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  17:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of WP:42.   19:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong delete per lack of notability, reliable sources, or any real content. Could probably have been PRODded. —  Richard  BB  21:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I did but the article creator reverted me. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  22:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as nonsense. Delete and SALT.--Seduisant (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Uhh, why SALT? There's no justification here for SALTing. -- &oelig; &trade; 05:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge any useful content into Lucid dream. -- &oelig; &trade; 05:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment The idea here is there is nothing salvageable from this pseudoscientific fringe misinformation. There are is no reliable evidence that any claims made in the article are in any way reliable. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  22:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Total lack of substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Purely promotional. Nothing worth salvaging or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:51, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless there is a reliable source on information on this it is not worth having. Pug6666 18:44, 25 May 2013 (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.