Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midbrain activation

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. I also blocked the spamming accounts, and slightly salted the ground. T. Canens (talk) 14:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midbrain activation (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)

No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & SALT there's too much activity by WP:SPAs (notably User:Jimee Amin, User:Subh007, User:2405:205:140e:2ec4:7577:b915:5553:4e60, User:Amardeep jaiswal Vande Matram, User:Midbrain.activation, & User:Santosh setty) on this article adding copyvio, advertising copy (Special:Diff/754567546, Special:Diff/753854014, Special:Diff/753525624, Special:Diff/753851941), & spamlinks (Special:Diff/752057756, Special:Diff/751416959, Special:Diff/751255810, Special:Diff/713134107, Special:Diff/712511487, & Special:Diff/712013023) to justify anything but WP:BLOWITUP & preferably add WP:SALT to put an end to this honeypot for spammers. Some action against the spammers would also be welcome. Cabayi (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the measure of notability? I've recently gone to the most elite school in one of the Metropolitan cities in India and saw a copy of a magazine about Mid Brain Activation on the desk of the Academic Director. What's the harm in not deleting the article even if it's not notable? I thought the point of having this article is to educate pseudo-scientific thinkers to the reality of the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yathish1618 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 15 January 2017 (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.