Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualized Auditory Stimulation
- 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. slakr\ talk / 00:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Individualized Auditory Stimulation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Only two hits in Google Scholar for this and zero in Google Books. Does not appear WP:notable. Most of the references cited are not about this procedure. Only one wp:primary source appears to be covering it. Uʔ (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Problem with primary sources, non-WP:MEDRS; this is probably something related to Tomatis and should be redirected, but I can't find a target article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit I was unsure of it when I moved it out of [{WP:AFC|AFC]], I wasn't aware of WP:MEDRS though.--SKATER Is Back 22:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's kind of a mess-- neither does it appear notable, nor does it appear that any sources deal directly with it, much less in secondary reviews as required by MEDRS. I guess it should be a redirect to Tomatis, but that is a redirect to the man-- probably because the whole thing is kinda bogus-- but there might be another target article if anyone can identify it. The dates on the alleged sources are another clue that this is going nowhere, as well as the fact that most of the sources cited are by the "inventor" of the notion, and at least ten years old-- no other significant mentions. This is a redirect, to somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand WP:MEDRS correctly, in order to be mentioned in a medical Wikipedia article this procedure must have been discussed by at least one wp:secondary source, even briefly. It's not clear that even that has happened in this case. A redirect with no mention in the target article is probably not a useful one. Uʔ (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, after more research, I think this is a delete. The primary author is chunking in a lot of general text, non-specific to this topic but general background info and poorly sourced at that, but there is still nothing of note (that is, not related to the fellow who coined the term) that I can find under any of the names given for this business. I can't find any target redirect, and can't think of what it would be (but if someone finds one that rolls this whole bogus idea and all of its names into one article, I'll reconsider). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming it's not wp:undue, perhaps it could be mentioned in auditory processing disorder#Remediations and training? [I have changed my username by popular request, by the way.] ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Or maybe in dyslexia interventions? I don't think it suitable for the main dyslexia article. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still a delete; although the primary editor continues to plop in sources that aren't directly related to the topic, I still haven't found any indication that it is a notable or enduring practice, and don't think even a redirect is needed-- it's just not a term anyone is likely to ever search on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, after more research, I think this is a delete. The primary author is chunking in a lot of general text, non-specific to this topic but general background info and poorly sourced at that, but there is still nothing of note (that is, not related to the fellow who coined the term) that I can find under any of the names given for this business. I can't find any target redirect, and can't think of what it would be (but if someone finds one that rolls this whole bogus idea and all of its names into one article, I'll reconsider). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If I understand WP:MEDRS correctly, in order to be mentioned in a medical Wikipedia article this procedure must have been discussed by at least one wp:secondary source, even briefly. It's not clear that even that has happened in this case. A redirect with no mention in the target article is probably not a useful one. Uʔ (talk) 06:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's kind of a mess-- neither does it appear notable, nor does it appear that any sources deal directly with it, much less in secondary reviews as required by MEDRS. I guess it should be a redirect to Tomatis, but that is a redirect to the man-- probably because the whole thing is kinda bogus-- but there might be another target article if anyone can identify it. The dates on the alleged sources are another clue that this is going nowhere, as well as the fact that most of the sources cited are by the "inventor" of the notion, and at least ten years old-- no other significant mentions. This is a redirect, to somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit I was unsure of it when I moved it out of [{WP:AFC|AFC]], I wasn't aware of WP:MEDRS though.--SKATER Is Back 22:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article is very much about auditory stimulation remediation and training as well as support for dyslexia.I was hoping for assistance in expanding and supporting this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karidone (talk • contribs) 13:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC) — Karidone (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The article seems to be promoting the work of a single individual or group. I could find nothing in peer reviewed journals that directly supports this technique. I would oppose any redirect for three reasons: No target article seems really appropriate (Alfred A. Tomatis? Auditory processing disorder?). Also, this concept/technique does not appear to be in widespread use and its claimed effects are not verified. Finally, this seems an unlikely search term for anyone looking for information on the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 16:47, 8 November 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.