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.
And why instead of deleting other people's work, can't you propose the improvement of the article? This is a very well known method.
Google returns more than 500 thousand results on the exact term,
Google news UK returns more than 2700 news/articles, and
Google books return almost 5000 entries on the exact term, how can you say it is not notable?João Pimentel Ferreira 02:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Joao.pimentel.ferreira (
talk •
contribs)
See
WP:BURDEN. If you can improve it, please do so, instead of accusing me of being a person who deletes other people's work - unless you're the author of this article? Anyway, if I see improvements, please feel free to {{ping}} me and I'll be happy to withdraw the nom. —
kikichugirlspeak up!05:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
See also
WP:GOOGLEHITS. The number of Google hits for something is not an indication of notability;
WP:GNG requires significant coverage, not just random pages that happen to mention something. The links have more information.
ekips3905:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I was almost the author of the article, and you could have tagged it differently instead of proposing a deletion, that was only my concern. Some issues were added later on the article such as the "advantages" of the method. I already deleted that paragraph. I also deleted all mentions to trademarks or registered marks to avoid the article to be seen as propaganda. Google might not be a reference, but what about
Google books with almost 5000 entries? And this term is not random, it refers specifically to this method. João Pimentel Ferreira 15:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Joao.pimentel.ferreira (
talk •
contribs)
I added independent and reliable sources. Pubmed, one of the main medical publishers in the world,
has 39 entries for this treatment.
Thank you.
João Pimentel Ferreira 17:14, 9 January 2015 (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 a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
And why instead of deleting other people's work, can't you propose the improvement of the article? This is a very well known method.
Google returns more than 500 thousand results on the exact term,
Google news UK returns more than 2700 news/articles, and
Google books return almost 5000 entries on the exact term, how can you say it is not notable?João Pimentel Ferreira 02:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Joao.pimentel.ferreira (
talk •
contribs)
See
WP:BURDEN. If you can improve it, please do so, instead of accusing me of being a person who deletes other people's work - unless you're the author of this article? Anyway, if I see improvements, please feel free to {{ping}} me and I'll be happy to withdraw the nom. —
kikichugirlspeak up!05:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
See also
WP:GOOGLEHITS. The number of Google hits for something is not an indication of notability;
WP:GNG requires significant coverage, not just random pages that happen to mention something. The links have more information.
ekips3905:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)reply
I was almost the author of the article, and you could have tagged it differently instead of proposing a deletion, that was only my concern. Some issues were added later on the article such as the "advantages" of the method. I already deleted that paragraph. I also deleted all mentions to trademarks or registered marks to avoid the article to be seen as propaganda. Google might not be a reference, but what about
Google books with almost 5000 entries? And this term is not random, it refers specifically to this method. João Pimentel Ferreira 15:25, 25 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Joao.pimentel.ferreira (
talk •
contribs)
I added independent and reliable sources. Pubmed, one of the main medical publishers in the world,
has 39 entries for this treatment.
Thank you.
João Pimentel Ferreira 17:14, 9 January 2015 (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 a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.