Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrambler therapy

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. As MastCell says, there are apparently no sources intellectually independent from the inventor (and, apparently, article author) who are covering this.  Sandstein  20:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrambler therapy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Contested prod. Theory of pain control proposed by a single engineer. Two PubMed hits (PMID 16012423 and PMID 12555009), both by the inventor. No evidence that it works, only limited evidence that anyone is using it. Creator of article has username identical to perhaps the only website that gives airtime to this treatment, and is the site run by the company headed by the original inventor.[1] Delete on notability grounds. JFW | T@lk 09:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Against deletion, but in favor of improving the article. Reasons:
  1) Anybody reading about Scrambler therapy and who wants to know more about it, should be able to find this information in Wikipedia.
  2) The two articles that are cited have been accepted by PubMed, originally by the journals Minerva anestesiologica and by JOP : Journal of the pancreas. Lova Falk (talk) 09:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not everything on PubMed is notable. Pubmed, incidentally, doesn't "accept" anything but collects abstracts of papers published in peer-reviewed journals. How do you address the possibility of promotion? JFW | T@lk 12:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the journals accepted the articles, didn't they? Anyway, I agree with you that the article is probably promotional, but I would prefer to start with a strong encouragement to improve the article rather than just delete it. In this improved article, it could be mentioned that the therapy is based on a novel and untested theory, and that it is not an evidence-based method. Lova Falk (talk) 18:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Evidence is here only a minor issue; we have long articles on treatments proven to be ineffective (e.g. Echinacea). The issue is notability. I just randomly typed a PMID code: PMID 4532561. It discusses the seaonal incidence of urinary calculi in Puerto Rico. Does that mean we need to integrate this wisdom into Wikipedia? JFW | T@lk 19:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    
    • You don't need to be ironic with me, please. Articles in scientific journals are valid sources of reference, even though the one you quote is rather old. I thought the main issue was the quality of the article, not notability. To address notability: "Scrambler therapy" gives 954 hits on Google, which I personally think is enough to qualify for an article in Wikipedia. To address quality: I agree that the article needs to be improved. Lova Falk (talk) 19:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope you don't mind that I turn the question around: why is this notable, given that it has not been proven and we cannot demonstrate that many people are relying on it? With all the "social media" stuff that friends of the professor have posted, it is rather easy to clock up Google hits, and Google hits are not frequently the determining factor in AFD debates. JFW | T@lk 23:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per nom. The evidence of notability is too feeble. This certainly does seem like self-promotion. I note, also, that if the article is to be kept, the very dense technical language will need to be smoothed out. Tim Ross (talk) 11:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Um...huh? that has to be one of the most densely-jargon-laden passages I have read in a long time. It is impossible to get a sense of what it actually is from reading it, which raises doubts in my mind. I'd have to say I lean towards delete at the moment. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the only significant contributor had conflict of interest. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 13:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I agree that this article does need a lot of clean-up. However, there are two sources listed, one of which apparently deals directly with the subject. I originally prodded the article as a straight copy/paste, but it has been cleaned up since then. Can anyone check on those references to see if they are legit? TN‑X-Man 15:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete with no prejudice against re-creation pending further sources. Very borderline, if there were any sources that indicated it was being picked up by other researchers it'd be a keep, but two publications, neither of which are Science, both by the same author, means it's not catching on (yet(?)). With time it'll either die off (and deletion is appropriate) or get more interest (and the article can be re-created). Given that you can't discuss the topic without discussing the author (since he's the only one who is using, testing, publishing, developing it), COI and self-promotion are big concerns. Given the inappropriate insertion of the link, I'm not inclined to be charitable. WLU (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Article appears to be a lift from a technical journal, yet at times seems promotional in nature (see a link from an organization that has "worldwide distribution rights"). Author appears to have COI problems here (check the contribution history and see the red flags). Delete per WLU. B.Wind (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Bottom line is that there don't appear to be enough independent, useful sources to write a neutral, non-promotional encyclopedia article. If it catches on and some additional work is published by someone who hasn't invented/profited from it, we could revisit it. MastCell ^Talk 21:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - perhaps keep prose as a research directions, section in pain or nociception LeeVJ (talk) 23:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• From Deltard. I was astonished to read the request by a user to cancel the page.The page contains scientific reference regarding traditional medicine accredited in Medline indexed publications backed up by scientific data produced by one of the most important Italian universities.The page contains no publicity, or anything violating copyright. I believe that the request for the page’s removal is unfounded. I am therefore asking for the page to be retained as Wikipedia is a resource for knowledge and information.
  • Note1: Deltard Profile.Researcher, Bioengineer, Contract teaching activities at Department of Biology of “Roma Tre” University of Rome. National affiliations: Special agreements in support of clinical studies with: "Tor Vergata" University of Rome, “Salvatore Maugeri” Scientific Research Institute of Pavia, Scientific Research Institution of Ospedale Maggiore of Milan. Other research collaborations:Istituto Superiore di Sanità (Italian Higher Institute of Health) [2].
  • Note2: Engineering is very different from the bio engineering and the bio engineering science it is different from the bio-engineering technology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltard (talk • contribs) 09:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: creator of page. JFW | T@lk 09:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deltard, could you provide evidence that scrambler therapy is widely used? Are you aware of any evidence of its efficacy that for some reason hasn't made it onto PubMed yet? I am not questioning your credentials or your department's ability in conducting research. But Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia that will generally only cover topics that are notable and well-established in their field. I apologise for mixing up engineering and bio-engineering. JFW | T@lk 09:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • From Deltard to JFW. JFW,h can understand your remarks. In Italy we do not enjoy many economic resources for doing research. I therefore had to wait for a US sponsor before starting up new international studies on a large scale. One of these studies, involving a control group on class 4 drugs, is awaiting publication. Further larger-scale studies are being organized in US hospitals and in Italy involving PET verification.
    • Each theoretical innovation is always marked by delays and doubts in the scientific community but is the only response that can provide objective data. Existing data confirm the method’s effectiveness and that its theoretical basis is correct. Other data based on non homogeneous case histories of over 2,300 patients collected over ten years by the Tor Vergata University Polyclinic show the same trends as those published. Furthermore, it is a fact that in several neuropathic and oncologic pain types the placebo effect has no clinical significance. This means that it is legitimate to study patients that do not respond to class 4 drugs or other therapeutic protocols for the relative pain type in auto-controlled mode as was done in the publications contained in the bibliography.
    • Other indirect references:Lundstrom BN, Fairhall AL. Decoding stimulus variance from a distributional neural code of interspike intervals. J Neurosci. 2006 Aug 30;26(35):9030-7.
  • So you agree that this is experimental? Would you expect it in an encyclopedia? JFW | T@lk 12:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:06, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, article should be improved to a useful stub. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think it is notable or not? If so, on what grounds? JFW | T@lk 12:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • FROM DELTARD TO JFW. (...and all) JFW, I certainly cannot consider as experimental a treatment that has been in use for ten years in our public hospitals and that has been used successfully on thousands of patients where all other therapies failed.Nor can I consider as experimental a therapy authorized throughout Europe (and in the near future in the US), a therapy that for the time being is the only solution documented in scientific literature and clinically verified for the treatment of pain that is untreatable by other methods, that is, pain which if not treated effectively often leads patients to demand euthanasia.

I therefore deemed it more correct that non scientific users should be informed about it and how it functions via Wikipedia since its use in hospitals throughout the world has begun. I could not do this before on my own as I am a researcher not an industry. The fact of continuing the studies is part of my mentality and that of the scientific community in general. However, this does not imply that it is experimental, at least as far as the clinical results are concerned. If you think that only a scientific user should be informed about the therapy and how it functions, Medline would be enough, as that is our information point of reference. If on the other hand you consider that such "exclusivism" is not correct and that Wikipedia is at everyone's disposal, I think the time has come to end the discussion and leave the page without the request for cancellation, or else remove it and leave all the information to Google and Medline. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deltard (talk • contribs) 10:19, 31 May 2008 (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.