Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Polarity therapy (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. A request to clarify earlier positions was not answered, making consensus of what to do unclear. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:35, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polarity therapy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

A non-notable pseudoscience, one of an infinite variety of such, without the benefit of reliable secondary sources. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 12:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ari T. Benchaim. Hope you are keeping well. Thanks for your time for reviewing this article. I also noticed your remarks and nomination for this article. The practice has been followed globally for various ailments. It also has sufficient secondary sources and also scientific backing for patients with these ailments. Request you to kindly reconsider and remove the tag. Thanking you. Gardenkur (talk) 13:06, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should not be hard at all to add them to the article.Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. You can't really remove an AfD tag. Once it is submitted to AfD, it can only be closed. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 13:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many items found in GScholar describing how they've designed treatment therapies with the protocol. I mean it's not really useful, in my opinion, but regardless of my thoughts, it's been reviewed and described. Notable for our standards. In particular here [ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1360859206000726] and [1] and here in a book [2]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure this counts - are practitioners of a therapy writing about their work with it independent? I am concerned about the WP:FRINGE aspect here. If describing a protocol is a secondary reliable source that establishes notability, then pretty much every drug is automatically notable. Ari T. Benchaim (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I'd distinguish between notable evidence that the therapy exists (which does establish inclusion into Wikipedia) from evidence that the therapy works (which needs to meet the more restrictive criteria of WP:MEDRS). The balance between the two is how we can be inclusive of notable fringe ideas without endorsing them. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I new-page-patrolled this. I didn't nominate it for deletion because it had enough secondary sources to meet WP:GNG. I agree it's pseudoscience and I tagged it as such, but that's not a criterion for deletion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article's sources are not independent reviews of the practice and lack WP:SIGCOV which fails WP:GNG. --mikeu ^talk 00:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the sources in the article, the only one that's potentially reliable for the purpose of this article is the one in Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies (incorrectly presented as "sciencedirect.com" – that's the publisher's platform for all its journals, not the source.) And I'm not 100% sure about that one, either. --bonadea contributions talk 16:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete accord Bonadea. Actually, Science Direct and Times of India are generally reliable. Bearian (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: - if I understand your comment, you are saying that the Times of India article counts as one of several potentially reliable sources beyond the one identified as such by Bonedea: by the numbers this seems to be making a case against the rationale that bonadea provided for delete, suggesting the GNG threshold is met. Could you clarify your !vote? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:00, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - BEFORE-depth research shows a fair number of scholarly articles on the subject beyond those currently in the article (e.g., [3] and [4]) and the existence of a credible-seeming professional association for practitioners of polarity therapy [5]. Our policies do not require that we delete articles on pseudoscience, so deciding whether the therapy is pseudoscience is not the main task here, rather we should be aiming to see whether (i) we are in a position to provide encyclopediac coverage that is both verifiable and neutral, (ii) the content in the article as it stands has no value (ie. WP:TNT applies), or (iii) if an ATD outcome is appropriate. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:00, 9 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.