Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain Balance

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 keep. Sandstein 10:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Balance[edit]

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

almost no evidence for notability -- clearly promotional article ~~by apparently paid editor.~~ DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:10, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DGG, this wasn't created by a paid editor. It was created by an editor who for a while had a bee in her bonnet about these sorts of programs. My impression was that she created the articles with the intention of "exposing" the programs as unscientific. She also created LearningRx and the now deleted Power Brain Education and extensively edited Cogmed and Arrowsmith School. The talk page of the latter and its archive are quite revealing of the mindset. Of course, once articles like these are created, they then attract COI/paid editors who try to skew them in a positive direction. Leaving all that aside, this program has had a fair amount of coverage, most notably a lengthy article in Bloomberg Business Week by Dune Lawrence who is quite a well-known investigative reporter. There's another lengthy article in Science-Based Medicine, which needless to say is very critical, this symposium paper from Valparaiso University, and this lengthy article (also critical) in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. I'm not sure there's a valid argument for non-notabilty, but there is undoubtedly one for quackery or something approaching it (yes, I know quackery isn't grounds for deletion). Voceditenore (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is a quack topic that fails WP:GNG. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I would withdraw the AfD if I could. The references above are sufficient . Voceditenore, could you please supplement the article with what you've found. (except that the symposium paper is an undergraduate work, in a symposium for undergraduate research, & the author does not qualify as an expert that their opinion can be used). I'm also a little dubious about using a newspaper article for a medical topic. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, the Science-Based Medicine and The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel were already in the article. It just wasn't obvious from the scant bibliographic information in the refs. I've fixed that. I've also added the Bloomberg Business Week feature, not to talk about the program itself, but about the Brain Balance business which is run on a franchising model with 110 centers and an annual revenue of $41 million. Other than that, I have no interest in working further on the article. Those subjects are utterly thankless tasks. Voceditenore (talk) 07:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Per NFRINGE fringe topics are acceptable as stand-alone articles provided they pass GNG, which this does in my opinion. The downside, of course, is that if the article is kept, it will need constant watching for the addition of promotional content. Brain Balance is not only a fringe theory, it is also a fairly large business with well over 100 franchisees. Voceditenore (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If there's anything promotional in that article, I clearly missed it. I also missed where it fails WP:GNG. I've read that guideline and all the sources support the current article text. They also fall under WP:RS. I also agree that additional coverage can be found. It's so obvious it doesn't need to be mentioned. Just seems like another random deletion nomination. This is one of the more common complaints about Wikipedia--Dr Silverstein (talk) 02:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't work at random--I look for promotionalism and conflict of interest and weak referencing, all of which usually go together. Sometimes I misinterpret, and sometimes I try to define the consensus on something which I think to be borderline, but nonetheless over 90% of my deletion nominations via our various processes are successful. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It may be quackery, but it's notable quackery. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references provided above are sufficient to establish notability. The sources in the article add to that. –Ammarpad (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2018 (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.