Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myomassology

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. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Myomassology

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

Non-notable new-age jargon; neither evidence nor assertion of notability. Orange Mike | Talk 23:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silver seren^C 04:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Except that it is notable. I've added references to establish notability. There seems to be a number of schools and college related classes for it. Silverseren^C 04:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- comment - do you really consider any of those reliable sources? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The WiseGeek people are qualified. Not entirely sure if Massage Therapy 101 counts as qualified. She appears to be qualified, but it is debatable. Leader Spirit is a magazine. Full Circle is a store publication, i'm not sure what the notability guidelines are for those. Silver seren^C 21:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google News search provides ample coverage. Removing any searches that have "Irene" in them, gets rid of the coverage specifically directed at that one business. [1] They've had court cases to regulate it. There is a school that teaches it, the Michigan School of Myomassology in Berkley. Dream Focus 01:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are all extremely trivial mentions. None of these Google News results discusses the subject in any detail. — Rankiri (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can look inside the Detroit News article here. — Rankiri (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I found no signs of significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. GBooks, GNews and GScholar show nothing of value. GDefine, Encyclopaedia Britannica and all major dictionaries show nothing at all. As for the article's sources...

[2] is a primary source blog.

[3] mainly quotes a self-proclaimed myomassology practitioner and contains no significant coverage of the subject.

[4] is an unambiguous advertisement.

[5] is a tertiary source written by a freelance contributor, published by a website that takes topic suggestions from its readers[6].

Silver seren, I know you mean well, but since it's not the first time you try to pass completely inadmissible sources as indicators of notability, could I please ask you to take another look at WP:N and WP:RS? Thanks. — Rankiri (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added more sources. Rankiri, you obviouly need to go look at the other AfD's i've been involved in, because the number that I fail in is much, much lower than the number that I succeed in. Not even counting those that my involvement caused the nominator to withdraw. I understand Wikipedia policy perfectly well, but sometimes i'm willing to stand out on the very far outside limb of notability and try and catch something that I think is worthwhile. Sometimes I fail. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't try. Silver seren^C 18:59, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not questioning your motives. I'm saying that instead of spending ten minutes on double-checking each of your sources and explaining why they are inadmissible, I'd rather spend that time looking for more appropriate sources myself. If you keep in mind that personal blogs, press releases, and trivial mentions don't establish notability, it'll be beneficial for both of us. — Rankiri (talk) 23:17, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Yes, it exists, but per Rankiri, none of the sources addresses WP:RS very well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about the new sources in external links? Those have yet to be addressed. Silver seren^C 18:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[7] is written by a graduate of Irene's Myomassology Institute. A single factoid is not significant coverage.

[8] is basically a letter by Irene of Irene's Myomassology Institute.

[9] has a couple of trivial mentions of the term without any context. The cover page has a personal endorsement by Irene of Irene's Myomassology Institute.

[10] is an advertisement. Didn't you notice all that business information on the bottom of the page?

[11] has no coverage of the subject whatsoever. — Rankiri (talk) 19:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No coverage of the subject? "and in particular by its provisions regarding the practice of myomassology" Silver seren^C 19:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. That document's only mention of the subject is in the reference to a now repealed section of Michigan's licensing code[12]. From what I see, the case itself discussed the constitutional aspects of warrantless searches of massage parlors and had nothing to do with myomassology[13]. — Rankiri (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rankiri's excellent analysis of the sources. Reyk _YO! 11:29, 28 March 2010 (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.