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. Star Mississippi 15:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bionic reading[edit]

Bionic reading (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Viral phenomena, whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. I don't see evidence of enduring notability for this viral trend, so I think that the page should be deleted. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Internet. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 06:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep until we have evidence it does not have lasting effect. There have been many clones created in spite of the patents and trademarks of the original, so even if the original becomes obsolete it may have triggered a larger trend in web accessibility features. –Jiaminglimjm (talk) 09:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If X is not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, and there has not been anything further to give X enduring significance, then X is is simply not notable. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we cannot assume that something will exist in the future that does not now exist based on mere assertion. The guideline is clear. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Also, there not enough WP:SIGCOV. --mikeu ^talk 16:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. To justify an article, we'd need credible independent scientific evidence that this works. Otherwise it is just a marketing campaign... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lacking in significant coverage, no actual scientific evidence, no press attention to this marketing gimmick. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:SIGCOV, a few minor stories highlighting a few viral facebook posts and stuff like that, but no sources seem to discuss the method itself. --Jayron32 18:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - An article should explain why its subject is notable, and this article does not contain enough information to explain what reliable sources say about the technology. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for now - it is WP:TOOSOON and WP:OR. This is a classic not yet ready for prime time invention. Bearian (talk) 15:30, 3 June 2022 (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.