- 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. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Psychopuncture
- Psychopuncture ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article which combines novel synthesis from reliable sources describing (albeit speculatively) the ides of acupuncture as a modulator for psychotherapeutic interventions, with ridiculous nonsense cited from unreliable sources, in order to arrive at a point where obvious pseudoscientific drivel with a tiny minority following is portrayed as having both scientific legitimacy and widespread support. Guy ( Help!) 20:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - notability missing, searched for reliable secondary sources didn't turn up much. I initially thought this was a hoax article. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't think we need even go into Guy's suggestion that there is an effort here to legitimize pseudoscience (plenty of Wikipedia articles exist for such topics, which are at times notable, regardless of the value of their practices or the strength of their following). I'm more compelled by the observations made on the article's talk page which seem to illustrate that the sourcing used to support the article has been misrepresented to suggest that said sources pertain to the topic at hand, when they in fact do not. Remaining sources are subject to a variety of other issues, most being both primary and otherwise non- reliable under policy, and most all of them being used in conjunction with the synthesis referenced above. Snow let's rap 23:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines, and clearly non-compliant with WP:MEDRS regarding sourcing for claims about supposed 'treatment'. Not what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Aside from the extreme fringiness and illegitimacy of this topic, this link, provided by Alexbrn during the Psychopuncture discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, should remove any lingering doubt. -- Seduisant ( talk) 04:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per QG; I really did think it was a joke. -- Middle 8 ( contribs • COI) 06:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete At best the article is spam. Basic Emotional Structure Test finds one source on google scholar. Here we have a page overview [1] on page 91. Maybe redirect to something else like alternative medicine. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. We need some independent sources to establish notability first. jps ( talk) 13:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:MEDRS requirements. RobBertholf ( talk) 15:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete This is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen. Weird. And it likely exists as self-promotion for this unknown modality. LesVegas ( talk) 17:31, 3 April 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.
The result was Delete. -- MelanieN ( talk) 23:52, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Psychopuncture
- Psychopuncture ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is an article which combines novel synthesis from reliable sources describing (albeit speculatively) the ides of acupuncture as a modulator for psychotherapeutic interventions, with ridiculous nonsense cited from unreliable sources, in order to arrive at a point where obvious pseudoscientific drivel with a tiny minority following is portrayed as having both scientific legitimacy and widespread support. Guy ( Help!) 20:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning talk 20:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - notability missing, searched for reliable secondary sources didn't turn up much. I initially thought this was a hoax article. QuackGuru ( talk) 20:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - I don't think we need even go into Guy's suggestion that there is an effort here to legitimize pseudoscience (plenty of Wikipedia articles exist for such topics, which are at times notable, regardless of the value of their practices or the strength of their following). I'm more compelled by the observations made on the article's talk page which seem to illustrate that the sourcing used to support the article has been misrepresented to suggest that said sources pertain to the topic at hand, when they in fact do not. Remaining sources are subject to a variety of other issues, most being both primary and otherwise non- reliable under policy, and most all of them being used in conjunction with the synthesis referenced above. Snow let's rap 23:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence of meeting Wikipedia notability guidelines, and clearly non-compliant with WP:MEDRS regarding sourcing for claims about supposed 'treatment'. Not what Wikipedia is for. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete - Aside from the extreme fringiness and illegitimacy of this topic, this link, provided by Alexbrn during the Psychopuncture discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, should remove any lingering doubt. -- Seduisant ( talk) 04:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per QG; I really did think it was a joke. -- Middle 8 ( contribs • COI) 06:46, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete At best the article is spam. Basic Emotional Structure Test finds one source on google scholar. Here we have a page overview [1] on page 91. Maybe redirect to something else like alternative medicine. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete. We need some independent sources to establish notability first. jps ( talk) 13:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Does not meet WP:MEDRS requirements. RobBertholf ( talk) 15:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Delete This is one of the most bizarre things I've ever seen. Weird. And it likely exists as self-promotion for this unknown modality. LesVegas ( talk) 17:31, 3 April 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.