Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2012 May 7.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. There is a strong project-wide consensus, reflected in WP:V#Notability, that we do not have articles about topics that have not received substantial coverage in reliable sources. That is especially so for supposed medical phenomena that have not been the subject of scientific research. Sandstein 06:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because http://www.reddit.com/r/asmr/comments/kn1sv/wikipedia_article_on_asmr_is_marked_for_deletion or http://theunnam3df33ling.blogspot.com/2011/09/help-save-asmr-wikipedia-page.html, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response[edit]

(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)[reply]

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

Agreed; there doesn't seem to be any legitimate scientific research into this. DS (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

— 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. [reply]
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. [reply]

I think "neologism" is more accurate than "colloquialism." Introducing new terms is not what Wikipedia is about. Joja lozzo 12:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Joja lozzo 03:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:NEOLOGISM. Joja lozzo 12:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. [reply]

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. Joja lozzo 02:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, that wasn't me, it was somebody else voting in agreement without altering my statement, I'm guessing. I have not voted twice - I'm aware of the concept of voting and fair use of this system. Thanks. Believe it or not, I really want this article to be either appropriate content (which I think it is, though maybe not in the current form), or be removed in lieu of qualification for an entry at a later date. Envelopenomia (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I am struggling to see the public benefit in deleting this article. I think that's why the vote is to keep - that is what Wikipedia is about, after all - providing information and answers to questions of the community at large. If someone wants to know what this 'ASMR' reference is they keep reading about on YouTube, this article helps explain it.Envelopenomia (talk)

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) — Segnicom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete this article as it seems to clearly violate Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines. I would also like to point out that "Autonomous Sensory Meridian Response" doesn't seem to mean anything. Anarchic Robocrat (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC) — Anarchic Robocrat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Anarchic Robocrat, I wanted to explain for you - you have a good point. I think this should also be in the article, if it is kept to document the term. Taking aspects of the experience, and applying something other than orgasm to the name helps avoid confusing this with a sexually oriented event. If you look up each of the words in the dictionary, you'll get a better idea of the intent. Autonomous - indicating the individualized nature, "not subject to control from outside", and from the biology definition and indication of the sudden, explosive quality, "spontaneous". Sensory - "of or pertaining to the senses or sensation", that one is pretty easy to get, since all the external triggers are based on sensory input, and in general it is a very sensory event. Meridian - admittedly, this could be confusing in reference if you don't know the definition of the word (or are on a witch hunt for what you assume are religious pseudosciences on the rise), "a point or period of highest development, greatest prosperity, or the like", an indication other than orgasm to indicate a peak of sensation, a climax... a meridian of this specific sensation (seriously, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/meridian). Response - yeah, a response to either an internal or external trigger, unlike, say the constant actions of uncontrolled events like human heartbeats (in those living) or the pull of gravity. Hope that helps. Envelopenomia (talk) 14:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close the discussion? - Unless I'm missing someone, Josh "Duff Man" is the only one here opposing the deletion who is not using a single-purpose account (most likely canvassed on reddit) and even his position is equivocal. Perhaps it's time to close this discussion. Joja lozzo 03:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a Wikipedia policy against new users voting for or against an article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account

New editors should be aware that while courtesy and a warm greeting will usually be extended, they may be subject to more scrutiny in the early stages of their editing as other editors attempt to assess how well they adhere to Wikipedia standards.
Existing editors should act fairly, civilly, not bite newcomers, and remember everyone was new at some time. Care is needed if addressing single-purpose accounts on their edits.

Just help out us here, Wiki-veterans. It's not a battle. People who have found this entry helpful and are fighting against its deletion may be new editors, but they are also voicing a concern. If we need to be shown the specific guidelines, listing helps, but also explaining an actual, concrete example from the offense would go a lot further. For instance, the reference www.asmr-research.org is a primary source, and really should be removed. Likewise with the Facebook group listing. There are, however, third party sources listed, as well. Granted, the listing is not yet complete, and really needs more on the term usage, but giving these kind of specifics will help the newcomers (including myself) understand your position better. Thanks for trying to understand - this reference material has helped a lot of people in a short time (I don't think I can cite my own email and conversations, or specific Facebook threads, so sorry, no ref on that one, just the people showing up here as proof). I personally really do want to do this right, and will happily change my vote if it's shown that this simply can't measure up to the metric. It needs a rewrite already, so I'll do that straight away, and will have the notability list in front of me the entire time. Thanks for being diligent, too - as long as your arguments are clearly stated, with compelling specifics, it won't be hard to convince me. Envelopenomia (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, this is a new account, but I have been editing articles (small changes) for a long time and have also probably donated more money than most. I agree that this article needs a lot of improvement, but please don't delete it. A lot of people care about this topic. It is a unique sensation and it seems that everyone who experiences it is always thrilled to find out there is a working name for it. It's true that there is no scientific research on this topic, but that is because most people simply don't experience it and we haven't been able to find each other until the Internet came along. Youtube also helps by making it easier to share videos that trigger it. And it's also very hard to explain. Being scientifically minded, I am looking forward to research being done and would be happy to participate in any studies or experiments! Anyway, I am also willing to work on this article once a new direction is chosen. Jonathan2112 (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC) — Jonathan2112 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Your arguments for keeping this article do not reflect much knowledge about Wikipedia. If there are no reliable, third party sources, then the article doesn't belong here. If we had a thousand reddit meatpuppets come here and post "votes" - it wouldn't make this a notable topic. Please read the guidelines for WP:Notability. Joja lozzo 12:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, Jonathan is the ONLY person who has posted since that discussion happened. Please don't make that the foundation of your argument to delete the content here... He's not a "meatpuppet", and the other people who have voted aren't, either. Envelopenomia (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The canvassing post on theunnam3df33ling.blogspot.com was three days ago. Those who responded to those posts, came here, created an account, and "voted" qualify as meatpuppets. Maybe you have a nicer word for it (ballot-stuffers?) but it's still a violation of policy. Joja lozzo 21:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEO and WP:OR, unless someone can add real references from some medical publications. Are the single purpose accounts of Alfredmaul, Envelopenomia, Shaggypete19, 203.20.130.18, Segnicom, and Jonathan2112 all sock puppets? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Don't_be_quick_to_assume_that_someone_is_a_sockpuppet No, I'm not a sock puppet, and have not created any such accounts. I can't speak for anyone else, but please don't make baseless accusations - we're trying to stay focused on what this article lacks to reach notability, not fight with each other. Help us out here by maintaining maturity, and pointing out specifics, instead of trying to distract by making unfounded accusations. It would be the same as me accusing you of being a sock puppet for one of the editors requesting the article be removed. Silly, useeless, and doesn't get to the heart of the matter. The links to no neologisms and original research - much more helpful, though these have already been listed, and thanks. Envelopenomia (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppet is an appropriate term for those responding to canvassing. Their presence does not influence whether we delete the article or not. Single-purpose accounts with poorly expressed positions that do not relate to Wikipedia policies have little influence. Ideally some will dig in a bit, figure out the policies and find a way to contribute to the project in a manner that's going in the same direction as the rest of us. Joja lozzo 21:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.