Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Depression and Biofeedback

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Depression and Biofeedback

Depression and Biofeedback (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod - prod (and prod2) were removed by the entry's author without discussion or improvements to the article. This is an essay written in the first person, and is not encyclopedic. Delete. Dawn bard (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Looking at the edit pattern, I suspect a copyvio, though I couldn't prove it. -- RoninBK _{T C} 18:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - First person blog entry-type garbage. Not a notable subject for an article and nothing worth merging. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Not an encyclopedic article. --Nepenthessss (talk) 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Smells of copyvio to me as well, although I was also unable to find the source. In any case, this essay is uncyclopedic. —Travis^talk 01:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as above per Mdsummermsw; nothing worthy in the article even if it were well written. Mattisse 22:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
• delete-unknown fringe balls, article probably designed to promote a theory, or even sell a gadget. Merkinsmum 22:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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.