User talk:Invigor1841

Welcome!
Thanks for your note. I had a look at the deleted article and I believe the answer to your question is quite simple. If you delete every reference to Irene Diamond, including specifically her connection with the therapy, her website and her personal history, that would be a good start. The therapy itself seems to have the requisite reviews in peer-reviewed journals that would probably -- I say "probably" because the article would be subject to the scrutiny of people who know far more about the topic than I, who might possibly have objections I am not qualified to make -- probably give it the ability to pass our notability standards, etc. Since it's been deleted at least once as being spam, you can bet that it will be scrutinized VERY carefully. But it's definitely the sales material leading to her clinic that is making the diagnosis of spam patently obvious. If someone wants to find out where this technique is practised, they can use Google.

By the way, if this therapy is only available from Ms. Diamond's personal clinic, I'd forget about a Wikipedia article entirely -- there would be no way to separate out the spam from the science. That's just my opinion, but it's based on experience. If this therapeutic technique is widely practised, then it has some scientific validity and will pass WP:FRINGE. If not -- probably not. I hope this helps you decide whether to go forward; if I can be of any further assistance, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I had another look at the article. The references provided don't seem to have much to do with demonstrating the validity of this particular method -- it makes the article seem like a "coatrack" for advertising.  I'm relatively untutored in these things, but even I know the difference between Feldenkreis and what you're talking about, particularly since you've noted near the end of the article that the therapy is not widely practised.  I don't think you're going to get much benefit from moving forward with a Wikipedia article, because it's unlikely to survive expert scrutiny.  That's just my opinion, albeit a relatively experienced one -- I'm just trying to save your time.  If you have more questions, of course, you can leave me a note.  Accounting4Taste: talk 20:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)