Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mozart effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was

non-notable DCEdwards1966 04:38, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

  • Definite keep. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:11, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Absolutely! 70,000 hits on Google. Possibly flakey but definitely notable. --LeeHunter 05:08, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. One of the late-night news programs, like Dateline or 20/20 did a story on this many years ago, and I've seen it pop up from time to time since then. Hence, notable. - RedWordSmith 05:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep only if the article is cleaned up to include later findings as well. Uncle G 05:21, 2005 Jan 9 (UTC)
  • Keep. This theory is pretty well known, but it needs more info here. I put a stub notice on the article. --Idont Havaname 05:56, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but needs major expansion. 23skidoo 06:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. --JuntungWu 10:33, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but add more. --Dmr2 10:51, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I remember this when it came out, it is about "cognitively complex"(sp) music (e.g. Mozart) being beneficial when studying, compared to music that isn't (Oasis was an example given at the time I think). It needs expansion, but should stay. -Thryduulf 13:16, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep valid stub about stupid but widely publicized theory. The book mentioned is ISBN 0060937203. I remember being extremely annoyed that some of the NPR-related mail-order gift catalogs were at one point pushing Mozart-effect snake-oil products. I trust the stub will be expanded in a suitably NPOV way. By the way, not that anyone has suggested it, but the stub does not read like advertising to me, and the book and associated CD's and other paraphernalia are old enough that it's not likely that the article was inserted for a promotional purpose. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:14, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete, needs a cleanup if it stays. Megan1967 00:29, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We also serve to debunk. GeorgeStepanek\talk 00:44, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, although controversial, long a notable topic. Wyss 01:16, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggested the stub be expanded in an NPOV way. Well... I've expanded it myself. As for notability, it led Georgia governor Zell Miller in 1998 to propose a $105,000 a year line item in the state budget to provide a classical music recording to every baby born in the state. For me, that clearly makes it notable. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I myself feel that it is notable in spite of this fact. The creation of stupid proposals appears to be de rigueur for such individuals. GeorgeStepanek\talk 02:45, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Is there a word "ig-notable?" Dpbsmith (talk) 02:54, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree with GeorgeStepanek Andris 01:53, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. It's a well-written article now. <KF> 02:23, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, particularly in its now cleaned-up form. I gently urge other voters to remember that non-NPOV-ness or need for cleanup aren't reasons to delete--merely reasons to revise. --TenOfAllTrades 03:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. However, cleanup is needed. Carrp 16:52, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Reasonably good article, and notable topic. Jayjg | (Talk) 19:25, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep a referenced article about a fairly notable topic. Jonathunder 23:18, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
  • Keep. Notable topic, even if it's disputed (and it mentions that fact in the article). --Deathphoenix 18:10, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article's been substantially expanded. You have to give things like this a chance. – flamuraiTM 23:57, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep; the subject is notable and well-known (even if not by its proper name). Psychonaut 01:11, 12 Jan 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.