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 redirect‎ to Lew Childre. Owen× ☎ 17:38, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HeartMath Institute (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Content previously deleted for lack of notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heartmath Institute, recreated under a trivially different capitalization. This is a fringe institute, for which the refbomb of references are either passing mentions, not independent, or not reliable sources. This should at best be redirected to Lew Childre, as the original Heartmath Institute has been. BD2412 T 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 17:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gargleafg, Jytdog, Bon courage, 79616gr, and TTTommy111: Pinging participants in the previous discussion, although most are not long absent (and one has changed username). BD2412 T 17:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 10:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - On its face, the organization seems notable. However, a closer look at the references seem like it is simply promoting itself. For instance, this article in Wired has a disclaimer that the writer received one of the devices and is not a doctor (curious why a non-medical professional would do a story on it). Then there is this in the Business Insider but looks like all the information was supplied by the org ("According to Doc Childre, founder of the Institute of HeartMath") so not independent. They simply do not pass the test of WP:SIRS. If anything, a redirect to Lew Childre as an WP:ATD would suffice. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The purpose of the Business Insider quote you mention to is distinguish between what the institute claims their device can do and the author's own review. This is exactly what an independent source should do. That being said, I think there's better sources than the Business Insider article anyway. ChaseK (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Fringe but notable. For WP:RS about their non-science claims there's 1 from WP:INDYUK, 2 3 from Wired, and 4 from Engadget which are all rated reliable in WP:PS. With respect to "coherence" there's a literature review 5, and for their fringe theories as per WP:PARITY there's also 6 by James Coyne and 7 by Steven Novella. There's plenty of reliable information here you just have to use the sources judiciously. Since Lew Childre's notability mostly derives from the institute, if anything I'd add a redirect the other way; there's far more coverage of the institute than him. ChaseK (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive my skepticism, but you are the article creator, and of your total of somewhat less than 350 edits to Wikipedia, more than 2/3 have been with respect to this sole topic. I would infer from those numbers that you might have a disproportionate sense of its notability. BD2412 T 17:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems to be an attack on me rather than a reply to the substance of my comment. The purpose of deletion discussions is to determine whether the subject meets the notability criterion, not whether editors have a "disproportionate sense" of notability. Nor do I think it's appropriate for an administrator to disparage the contribution counts of a (newish) user. ChaseK (talk) 17:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • To be clear, I find the citations to be insufficient for an entity that, even as a non-profit, must still meet WP:NCORP, which is a fairly high standard given the number of companies that would like to see their products featured in Wikipedia. It is fairly well-established that having a notable product does not automatically make the manufacturer notable, and a product review that mentions the manufacturer is still a passing mention for that manufacturer. BD2412 T
        • To quote WP:PRODUCT: "In cases where a company is mainly known for a single series of products or services, it is usually better to cover the company and its products/services in the same article." In this case the org has broader notability than its products, and so the org article should be preferred over product articles. ChaseK (talk) 19:17, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hear what you are saying but if notability of this company is based on skepticism, the references must still meet WP:ORGCRIT. These do not. It looks like the company did some well-planned press which gained a little traction about a decade ago and then a few who guest posted on some sites to counter it. if the company was worthy of notice, we would have plenty of in-depth coverage showing notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    No the skeptical sources 5-7 don't establish notability, they only contextualize the other coverage. Sources 1-4 were meant to establish notability. For example: 1: Jerome Burne is health journalist independent of the subject, The Independant is generally considered reliable, and the article has substantial coverage. Seems fine for use in non-WP:MEDRS statements. ChaseK (talk) 18:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, this is promotional and unencyclopedic. I won't revert since this is going through discussion, but if the page is kept it would need to go through a discussion per WP:ONUS. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm fine if you remove it - I added it mostly because I thought it was interesting that much of their fringe research is being funded by the U.S. government. To be honest I find WP:VNOT to be very vague so I'm not sure how it applies here. ChaseK (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. We also have to focus on WP:NPOV. If adding it because you find it "interesting that much of their fringe search is being funded by the U.S. government," that is clearly trying to lead readers to a conclusion which we don't do on Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41: I would also point out, relevant to the discussion, that there are government contractors that receive billions or tens of billions of dollars per year. A company receiving $4 million over a twenty year period is of no moment. BD2412 T 00:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, given the paucity of the sources; thank you CNMall41. Drmies (talk) 17:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The institute has been covered far more extensively than Childre, so shouldn't the redirect go that way? Or delete both articles? ChaseK (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/Redirect as per above. WP:NCORP fail. Not every pseudoscience org can have a Wikipedia page. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:50, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Slight POV slant, would need significant rewriting to be in line with MOS, but this is largely irrelevant due to the questionability of the references and previous AfD verdict.Thanks,Neuropol^Talk 13:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've added this to the Paranormal-related deletion discussion list. 5Q5|^✉ 10:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Delete per WP:ATTACK. This page exists primarily to disparage its subject. JSFarman (talk) 15:01, 14 June 2024 (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.