Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response

Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response

Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass WP:GNG, could be a notable subject in the future after more research is done, but for now it appears to be a WebMD-style guide. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed; there doesn't seem to be any legitimate scientific research into this. DS (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep but remove the original research (most of the article). Right now, most of the article takes a lot of stuff that non-scientific communities have sort-of agreed on, and is stating it as fact. As written, it is not very accurate or useful. However, this is something that some people have known about for a while, and other people are getting curious about. Personally, I first heard about it when I read this post by a popular webcomic artist. I was surprised that there was no Wikipedia article yet. I think the current first 2 lines of the article are a good introduction, and I would rather see them stay as a stub with the rest of the content blanked out than see the page disappear entirely. If the article can accurately state the un-official status of the term, and give a new reader an understanding of what people probably mean when they use the term, I think it should be kept. ~ Josh "Duff Man" (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

— Note to closing admin: JoshDuffMan (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. The phenomenon may have been described by some people, but no serious research seems to have been performed to confirm its existence. PubMed has no mention (~10,000,000 medical research articles indexed). Neither does Google Scholar. Hence: pseudoscientific nonsense. JFW | T@lk 15:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep it, I think. The article is useful and appropriately disclaim the lack of research and 'pseudoscientific nonsense'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfredmaul (talk • contribs) 04:45, 16 September 2011 (UTC) — Alfredmaul (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep this article as a reference for the colloquialism. It may need to be recategorized, but deleting it will end up with a lot of people hunting a reference that is missing. The article may need to be retailored to explain the nature of the entry, and document the origins of the term, instead of being focused on the term definition only. Envelopenomia (talk) 01:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — Envelopenomia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• I think "neologism" is more accurate than "colloquialism." Introducing new terms is not what Wikipedia is about. Jojalozzo 12:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep this article. This is a great place for experiencers to add information that can attract interest so that serious scientific research can be done. Shaggypete19 (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC) — Shaggypete19 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Those of you defending this article, please read and understand Wikipedia's policy on original research; in particular, what counts as original research and why. DS (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is not scientific, and comprises entirely pseudoscientific claims. Wikipedia is not a place for original research or personal theories. AUN4 (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - This phenomenon has received no scholarly attention of any kind. We shouldn't include this article until there's more support for it than blogs and opinion pieces in the news. Jojalozzo 03:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Also WP:NEOLOGISM. Jojalozzo 12:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep this article as a reference it needs recategorising, but deleting it will end up with a lot of people hunting a reference that is missing. The article may need to be retailored to explain the nature of the entry, and document the origins of the term, instead of being focused on the term definition only. Without this type of reference you destroy the whole idea of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.130.18 (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC) — 203.20.130.18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Are you Envelopenomia forgetting to log in and voting twice with the same text?

In any case, I think you misunderstand this project if you think it should include all the rumors, ideas and notions that come along. I recommend you review the WP:Notability guidelines again. Jojalozzo 02:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Although this is an interesting one. The article does appear to fail the test of verifiability from reliable sources, although much of the guidelines are clearly formulated with the verifiability of claims about established knowledge in mind. The guidelines may be less helpful in deciding on what to do with subjective phenomena that are still below the threshold where they become interesting to members of the scientific community. I am struggling to see the public benefit in deleting this article. Dejs (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• So you're !voted to keep the article, even though you know it doesn't pass any guidelines? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• Keep but change the article in order to reflect the fact that this isn't scientifically proven, but rather a notable internet phenomenon. --Segnicom (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)