Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organic frequencies


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:47, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Organic frequencies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Poorly sourced article about pseudoscientific concept. The University of Colorado link is broken, and none of the other references appear to meet reliable sources guidelines]]. The bulk of the article reads like an advertisement for an "energy healer." OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Same as nominator. Jeff Quinn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. It starts with some unsourced (but reasonable) statements about the history of different musical scales being used, then suddenly veers into bizarre health claims, which form the bulk of the article. Most of the "Today" section talks about a single person who is described as a biological researcher, but who was in the Philosophy department (if the dead link is accurate), and who has no published biology papers that I can find.  The only references are to her own works.  The claims of health effects are not supported, and I cannot find reliable sources that report such research. --Gronk Oz (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - The concept of certain frequencies affecting the body exists, and whether it is true or baseless, it warrants an article. See here and here. However, much of the article should be removed as rubbish/promotional. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Stubbify - As Cwmhiraeth notes, the concept may warrant an article; but not his one. The "Background" section merely recapitulates material presented in scientific pitch, and the "Today" section is poorly sourced and promotional. I'd suggest cutting this down to a stub pointing at scientific pitch for the time being, pending some checks into what suitable material does exist. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sources are either unreliable in terms of WP:MEDRS (including those that Cwmhiraeth listed above) or don't indicate any notability for the fringe topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 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.