Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semantic Stimuli Response Measurement


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Semantic Stimuli Response Measurement

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nothing in Google scholar or books with this phrase, which leads me to wonder if it's all publicity for the company named in the lead. Part of a family of related articles. Dougweller (talk) 11:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. As for the family of articles around it, the Smirnov bio might be worthy of an article as a notable fringe scientist. Yakushima (talk) 11:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. One of group of articles created about Northam Technologies product by SPA. The company itself is not notable, with a passing mention in Wired and a lot of press release material. Jonathanwallace (talk) 12:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Besides the objections given above, there's more. The originator of these articles explained h/self at Doug's talk-page: the following's an excerpt: "Much of the information available on the technologies themselves are not published as they are still in testing phases with homeland security. I'm just trying to make as much of the information public." So, if no reliable, third-party published sources are likely, there seems no leeway for even a provisional "keep". Without wishing to stray too far from this particular deletion proposal, similar problems seem to attend the "rest of the nest"; Smirnov excepted, perhaps, as per Yakushima (above). Haploidavey (talk) 16:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as spam, the only sources mentioning it are the the company website it's promoting.--Misarxist 17:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: a combination of WP:OR and self-promotional WP:SELFPUB. No indication of significant coverage (or even vestigial coverage) in independent reliable sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete no independent coverage. This and related articles look like components of a PR blitz on behalf of Northam Psychotechnologies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Google Scholar, available from the third link on the AfD template finds just one of the references (Shevrin and Smith “Average Evoked Response and Verbal Correlates . . . “,, Psychophysiology, vol. 8, No. 2, 1971.) to be cited by 33 other scientific articles. Dixon's reference, the very first one, is cited by 475 other scientific articles. Scholar is also relevant to the related AfD, Articles for deletion/Semantic Mediated Analysis of Responses and Teaching. Anarchangel (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that Shevrin's paper and Dixon's text are listed among the article's "further reading" list. Do these materials specifically address "SSRM Tek", or is it a case where SSRM Tek proponents are citing them as an orientation to the general area of their technology? That could make a big difference. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:07, 28 January 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.