Deletion of Brain Center International

Comment: The question is not whether the initial version of an article is a terrific encyclopedia article, full of references and completely "|nonpoint of view," but whether the subject is |verifiable and |notable with |reliable and independent sources which would allow an encyclopedic article to be written. This company and its products have had some such coverage, such as http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090220.wlbike20/BNStory/specialScienceandHealth/home?cid=al_gam_mostemail The Globe and Mail, which verifies the appearances on TV shows happened. This article also includes criticism of the company, which should be included. We do not only have articles about effective products; the caveats in the Globe and Mail article are worth noting. Google News Archive has http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=%22Brain+center+international%22&cf=all 32 articles, but many have expired links or are in French or require payment to view them. There does appear to be enough reliable and independent sourcing, such as http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090310155603.htm, for an article to be developed
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: A search learns that it is published in bits and pieces on some semi |reliable sources. Other pages covering it are semi-spam, but still i would give it the benefit of doubt - for now. At the very least its not a CSD G11 - by far
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:rs)