- 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. MBisanz talk 03:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neurobics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Declined prod; neologism with no references. Borders on being unencyclopedic. KurtRaschke (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and unreferenced original research.ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per article being fixed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, sadly. Googling this gives a gajillion hits, and while it is a neologism (from 2006?) it seems to be getting some traction. The information in the article appears to be mostly accurate, if lacking citations. Mangoe (talk) 19:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong and Speedy Keep, There are dozens of reputable sources available verifying the notability of the Neurobics theory, which has been around since at least 1999. I've added some refs to the article. LinguistAtLarge 00:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Accuracy backed by refs. --Beligaronia (talk) 03:22, 19 November 2008 (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.