Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of HeartMath
Appearance
- Institute of HeartMath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
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#4 appears to be self-published; #5 is a "brief report" in a reputable journal dating from 15 years ago and is probably not peer reviewed; #7 and #8 are articles in a fringe journal; #9 is self-published; #10 appears to be an article in a fringe magazine; #11 is a press release; #12 is a brief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.
- #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)
- #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)
- #4 The U.S. Department of Education funded IHM to carry on the TestEdge National Demonstration Study, therefore references should be from IHM.
- #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)
- #7 and #8 are also internationally peer-reviewed and the Journal of Alternative and Complimentary Medicine is not a fringe journal.
- #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)
- #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)
- #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.
- #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. -- Radagast3 (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)