Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muse (headband)

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. Sufficient consensus that WP:GNG is satisfied. Michig (talk) 07:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Muse (headband) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Promotional and non notable. Makes medical claims without using MEDRS quality resources. I tagged it for A7and G111, but the tags were removed by another editor, who seems to think that the mere presence of references indicate possible importance even if they are just press press releases, DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – WP:GNG pass. Some sources below. The article does not have a particularly promotional tone, does not extol any greatness of the product, use peacock language, or encourage readers to purchase the product. Existence of an article ≠ automatic promotionalism by default in this case. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If " The device measures brain activity via a series of EEG sensors, the level of activity is fed back to the user via headphones. Brain waves that correspond to a more relaxed state are represented by tweeting birds, those corresponding to higher amounts of brain activity are represented by storm sounds. Using the headband helps in reaching a deep relaxed state relatively quickly compared to traditional meditation..... The goal of Museis to use biofeedback to train your brain,.. isn't straightforward advertising what its? Complete violation of MEDRS, so in any case the claims would have to be removed, leaving no content. DGG ( talk ) 05:07, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have copy edited the article to address this and other concerns about promotionalism. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as the listed coverage is all still expected regarding the fact this is about a technology and, of course, the articles themselves simply talk about the product itself and its benefits; it's all still too soon and we're best waiting for later. Even with the articles themselves talking about its benefits and such, that's advertorial and thus nothing else to base better from. SwisterTwister talk 20:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - easily passes GNG, and in addition to the above sources: Newsweek, DNA: Daily News & Analysis, NewsRx Health, Medical Devices & Surgical Technology Week.-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Northamerica1000's research and argument. Yvarta (talk) 04:41, 3 August 2016 (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.