Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semantic Mediated Analysis of Responses and Teaching
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Semantic Mediated Analysis of Responses and Teaching (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. This (and its related articles) look like components of a PR blitz on behalf of Northam Psychotechnologies. LuckyLouie (talk) 20:19, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'd already looked for any sources for this phrase and found no independent sources. Dougweller (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Every source I could find traces back to here or to the institute being pushed in this set of articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google Scholar, available from the third link on the AfD template finds just one of the references (Shevrin and Smith “Average Evoked Response and Verbal Correlates . . . “, , Psychophysiology, vol. 8, No. 2, 1971.) to be cited by 33 other scientific articles. Scholar would also be useful for the related AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semantic Stimuli Response Measurement. Anarchangel (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What I'm seeing, though, is that the term in question has no traction in GScholar. Shevrin himself appears to enjoy some notability and could probably support an article, but the connection of the paper in question to the article at hand is tenuous. Mangoe (talk) 15:59, 26 January 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.