Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute of HeartMath

Institute of HeartMath

(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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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#4 appears to be self-published; #5 is a "brief report" in a reputable journal dating from 15 years ago and is probably not peer reviewed; #7 and #8 are articles in a fringe journal; #9 is self-published; #10 appears to be an article in a fringe magazine; #11 is a press release; #12 is a brief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)[reply]

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)[reply]

#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)[reply]

#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)[reply]

#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)[reply]

#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)[reply]

#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)[reply]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Content586 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —andy (talk) 08:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]