Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 July 25

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Institute of HeartMath (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think the subject matter is notable. I edited out all advertising-sounding, self-promotional language. Would like to know what needs to be done to improve article Dcsm23 (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove the link from the heading - users draft is as User:Dcsm23 --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted The objection at the AfD was not "promotional" but rather "Consensus is that the sources provided are tangential. ". This remains the case. The details were discussed at the AfD. DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse own deletion any AFD where DGG asserts deletion is going to have had very careful evaluation of the sources and there was a clear consensus that the sources proffered with tangential - which means it doesn't pass our inclusion criteria - which require detailed and specific independent sources. Spartaz Humbug! 21:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've never been able to convince my friend Spartaz that I as likely to be wrong when I argue for deleting an article as when I argue for keeping one DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way that these 4 references:
  • www.usatoday.com/news/education/2006-03-07-stress-test_x.htm
  • www.pbs.org/bodyandsoul/203/heartmath.htm
  • www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12816624
  • Beech, D., Childre, D., & Martin, H. (1999). The HeartMath Solution: The Institute of HeartMath's Revolutionary Program for Engaging the Power of the Heart's Intelligence. New York: HarperCollins. Pg. ix, 283.

Are tangential. Each treats in some detail on HeartMath. I disagree with the claim of tangentiality. I specifically found additional links that weren't tangential. These links were not included in the first two drafts, if you compare them. Dcsm23 (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse this is an "AFD, round 2" nomination if I've ever seen one. Please see the bolded text at the top of this very page that says "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm willing to treat this as round two if it clearly looks like a wrong decision by either the community or the closer has been made in round one. But in this case I've re-examined the sources, and they do not support the article. True, emotional state affects physiology, just as physiological state affects emotions, and performance reflect both physical and emotional condition, but there is no real evidence this organization or its technique is considered to have any significance in dealing with any of this. DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You've already had your !vote above. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    oops; my apologies DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.