Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solfeggio frequencies

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:06, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solfeggio frequencies

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

General notability not established, self-published sources __ Just plain Bill (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yet another new-age pseudo-mysticism topic. This one would make the snake-oil vendors blush. Even if we can find someone who writes objectively about it, the topic is uninteresting. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm somewhat mixed in my view as to whether this is a notable fringe idea. That it is fringe, however, is indubitable. Anyone who knows much about medieval music, for instance, knows that claims made about Gregorian chant are utterly false. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems notable only within the fringe bubble, lacks any mainstream coverage. Supposedly this guy coined the term, but no verifiable sources to cite. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep - Yes, this is a fringe topic... but it seems to be notable enough as a fringe topic to merit an article. A quick glance at Google books shows numerous independent sources that discuss it in some depth. I think the topic passes the minimum threshold for Wikipedia to have an article about it. However, the current article's text would need a rewrite, so that it accurately presents the topic without giving it's adherents undue weight. Blueboar (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the article's current state was reached after drastic rewriting. This is more representative of how it has stood in its recent history. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 21:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Complete lack of any mention whatsoever in reliable independent sources. The only mention I could find was in the originator's self-published book and extreme fringe books, none of which even come remotely close to being reliable for any purpose here on WP. The concept has attracted exactly zero interest outside of the new age community, and has been entirely ignored by real-world scholars of music. Nor has it generated any interest within the mainstream popular press. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate or userfy WP:Notable topics ~~that fail~~ where the article fails WP:V are suitable for the incubator. Unscintillating (talk) 04:19, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonsense article.Stenen Bijl (talk) 04:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fringe nonsense. — Scott • talk 13:01, 31 May 2013 (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.