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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 00:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neurofeedback Training Company[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

No indication that subject meets WP:NORG notability guidelines. Of the two independent, reliable sources, 1) the Newsweek article does not mention the company at all, and 2) the ICT journal only mentions the product that the company uses (made by a different company); there is nothing about the subject itself. My WP:BEFORE has brought up no additional sources that can be used to establish notability. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nom is correct - the only secondary sources in the article do not mention the company - they mention a product (NeurOptimal) that is used by the subject, but not made by the subject. I can't find any significant coverage of the subject itself in reliable, secondary sources, so fails WP:NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 10:02, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete no evidence of notability found in this startup. Graywalls (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Its not a startup, it is well estabilshed company found 2011, with employees and offices across the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalibor.Selucky.TC (talk • contribs)
Delete. Not notable, and I would have G11'd this. Natureium (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ *Hello, I studied carefully guides for page deletion, and:

"...A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it..."

The articles linked to this wiki page are then from the variety of places across the web talking mainly the product. Of course, the product is what nearly always defines a commercial unit.

As an example, would you talk about Company Huawei on its own, without disclosing info about their founder, place and products or services?

Some companies important as companies, due to their size. But one cannot really talk about Ford without talking about cars, OR Henry Ford, OR innovation done by their owner, OR their connection to nazy.

And Wikipedia understands this and thus allows the company to be notable based on their product - if they developed it or not.

As a matter of fact, Wikipedia discourages talks about the company, just because it is a company, and states:

"...the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO..."

Thus I vote for keeping the page up and live, and perhaps list it for improvements by listing more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalibor.Selucky.TC (talk • contribs)

Delete: Articles about the general field or about the tool utilised by this company are insufficient for the WP:NCORP criteria. I do not see evidence for the notability of the company. (Nor would its use in a case study be sufficient to establish notability if an article on the NeurOptimal product was under consideration here.)AllyD (talk) 16:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Perhaps the article could change its focus towards the NeurOptimal as actual Neurofeedback tool, would that be rather fitting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalibor.Selucky.TC (talk • contribs)

Dalibor.Selucky.TC please only provide one Keep opinion. I have struck the second above (and your earlier long comment would also be taken as a Keep). AllyD (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2019 (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.