Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delayed auditory feedback

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. asilvering (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed auditory feedback

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This topic is already covered under both "Stuttering treatment" and in detail under "Electronic fluency device". Information on "Electronic fluency device" is fully sufficient Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I checked Stuttering therapy and Electronic fluency device and they do not seem to contain the information of the "Effects in people who do not stutter" and "Effects in non-humans" sections of the nominated article. YuniToumei (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Confused bc those sections can easily be included in "electronic fluency devices", as this is an electronic fluency device, right? Bl0ckeds0unds (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bl0ckeds0unds I believe that the effects of DAF described in the two mentioned sections fall outside of the scope of the Electronic fluency device article: In the Effects in people who do not stutter section, the application of DAF in research for disrupting fluency (as a "SpeechJammer") (see e.g. this, this and this paper, taken from that section's inline citations) is discussed, which is not suitable for the proposed merge as the Electronic fluency device article is limited to usage intending to improve fluency for people who stutter. The Effects in non-humans section discusses the application of DAF in songbirds (again see inline citations). The Electronic fluency device article is limited to effects in humans, so this too seems out-of-scope.

In short, DAF seems to refer to a broader concept, is not limited to electronic fluency devices, and thus I think it should be kept. Hope this clears it up a little! YuniToumei (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a broader notable concept. Some topics overlap with others and that is ok.4meter4 (talk) 16:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. @Bl0ckeds0unds Aaron Liu (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per 4Meter4 ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 09:47, 21 November 2024 (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.