User talk:Smile a While/Bioacoustics therapy

Comments from Setemb
'''Thanks Smile! My article sure got cut up!! ouch. I copied the log leading to deletion and have made my comments in green'''

Deletion log for Bioacoustics therapy
Bioacoustics therapy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This is a clear POV fork of Bioacoustics, using a description of the actual science in order to promote an extreme fringe therapy that analysing a frequency pattern of a voice can be used to diagnose illness. By mixing material from Bioacoustics with extreme fringe material about using frequency analysis of the voice to diagnose disease and playing back sounds to treat the diseases found, and throwing in some fringe self-published internet "journals", alongside respectable journals on the completely unrelated mainstream science, this article attempts to put the science of Bioacoustics, and the extreme fringe alternative medicine treatment it sets out to promote on the same footing. It switches between them frequently, sometimes a few times a paragraph, though other parts stick with one or the other for some time. The effect is to place the mainstream and fringe at the exact same weight, and to use descriptions of the science to bolster the fringe. This is, of course, in violation of WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, and WP:POVFORK. The method used to create this article is forbidden in WP:SYNTH. There is no sign that the fringe material is covered in any reliable sources, or that the fringe material is at all notable, so I'd suggest full deletion. Extreme stubbification is the only other alternative. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Shoemaker's Holiday]] (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

•	Keep - I don't see this as being a POVFORK - what it seems to be is an application of Bioacoustics which, on the face of it, is reasonable concept as a separate page and it has plenty of sources. The nominator has already tried to unilaterally stubbify the article and I am sure that is the wrong approach. My preferred way forward would be for the nominator, or other interested editor, to add sourced balancing content or to argue on the talk page against relevant sections. Smile a While (talk) 02:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

o	I'm sorry, but no. The problem is that this is a cunningly-written article specifically designed to violate core Wikipedia policies such as WP:UNDUE by synthesizing together unrelated content - itself a violation of policy. Adding more material will not fix that. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment. The reasons given for deleting it generally aren't reasons for deletion. What we need to know is whether there is enough material on the fringe treatment for an article. Then separate out that content for this article. Nominator says that the fringe topic is not notable, and I'm guessing that is probably correct. So, forget all the other stuff, and focus on whether it's notable as a fringe subject. If it isn't, delete it. So I'm asking Smile a While and whoever wants to keep it to paste in a RS which covers it as a fringe treatment. That's really all we need to know. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

•	Comment: Isn't that what the Liebowitz et al. source does? I.e., "'There is little scientific validation of either the principles or the theraputic powers of bioacoustic therapy.'" Here it is being treated as an alternative therapy (the source is Duke Encyclopedia of New Medicine: Conventional and Alternative Medicine for All Ages), and not even a good one, but it still seems to be passing WP:RS. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC) This is a common statement used in publications when stating therapeutic value of alternative therapy techniques. Similar statements are made for many of the therapies listed in the Duke University Encyclopedia and elsewhere.

Delete or stubify... Zero hits for "bioacustic therapy" in google scholar There were 156 hits in Google Scholar in my search done Nov 22, 2008 - including the The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

Primary sources are heavily refferenced, including promotional pamphlets and a promotional DVD. Many sources are given to provide information on unrelated information (describing the origins of the EEG for example). I removed a whole section about research which did not have an wp:RS source, but did contain a citation to a Duke reference book claiming there is "little scientific validation" to the therapy. NJGW (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Again, this is common for many of the 60 therapies listed in The Duke University Encyclopedia of New Medicine.

This is remarkable:

Of those 60 therapies listed in the Duke University Encyclopedia – only 5 don’t have pages in Wikipedia.

Of the 11 techniques listed in Chapter 20 “Energy Therapy”, the ONLY technique that doesn’t have a Wikipedia article is Bioacoustic Therapy.

Delete Fails WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC) 156 hits in Google Scholar and 25 hits in Pubmed, and references reliable sources such as Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, The Duke University Encyclopedia of New Medicine, Vibrational Medicine: the #1 handbook of subtle-energy therapies, ‘’Health On The Edge: Visionary Views of Healing in the New Millennium’’, The Scientific Basis of Integrative Medicine, American Academy of Audiology Annual Convention, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2006.

Weak keep per my above comment. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

•	Keep. Notable, if that Liebowitz encyclopedia is what it looks like- that is, if it is about this subject in the fringe sense. Make only about the fringe subject, remove the problems nominator is worried about. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

IT depends, though: I mean, does half a paragraph in a multi-volume reference work really cover it? We need enough sources to write an article, and I'd like to se some evidence f more than a passing mention. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Which of the article’s reference work is being referred to? The Duke University Encyclopedia of New Medicine has a full page, Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, has 4 pages, Vibrational Medicine: the #1 handbook of subtle-energy therapies, has 2 pages, ‘’Health On The Edge: Visionary Views of Healing in the New Millennium’’ has 25 pages, and The Scientific Basis of Integrative Medicine has 2 pages.

•	Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Delete zero hits on Google Scholar and Pubmed, no references to write an article from. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC) As noted above, there are 156 hits in Google Scholar today Nov 22, 2008, and PubMed, has 25 hits today Nov 22, 2008

I included 30 sources in the Wikipedia article – thought they were supposed to be included as “Notes”. Is it better to name them as “references”? Among them were:

Klotter, Jule (2004): “Human BioAcoustics & Sound Health, Inc.” Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients 250: 90-93. 2,991. Liebowitz, Richard, and Linda Smith, eds. The Center for Integrative Medicine at Duke University (2006) "Bioacoustics Therapy” The Duke Encyclopedia of New Medicine: Conventional and Alternative Medicine for All Ages, p. 567. Rodale, New York, NY. ISBN 1-59486-494-2 Gerber, Richard (2001). Vibrational Medicine: the #1 handbook of subtle-energy therapies, 3rd Ed, pp.522-523. Bear and Company., ISBN 1-879181-58-4. Trivieri, Larry (2003). “Bioacoustics: Using Sound to Heal and Prevent Disease” ‘’Health On The Edge: Visionary Views of Healing in the New Millennium’’: 209-233. Tarcher/Penguin, New York, NY. ISBN 1-58542-262-2 Wisneski, Leonard A. and Anderson, Lucy (2004). “Bioacoustics” The Scientific Basis of Integrative Medicine, pp.157-158. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. ISBN ISBN-10: 084932081X Davis, Dorinne, and Edwards, Sharry. (April 2002). BioAcoustic Voiceprint Frequencies and Otoacoustic Emissions, American Academy of Audiology Annual Convention. Retrieved July 18, 2008 from http://www.thedaviscenter.com/DAVIS_ADDENDUM_ASA_04.doc.pdf.

Delete No relevant Pubmed hits either (though if Histopathology of spontaneous brain herniations into the middle ear does not make you want to study medicine, there is no hope). No entry in the Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine. No mention by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; someone else can make a more thorough search of otology associations, but I doubt that the result would change. No mention by the National Cancer Institute or a couple other organizations who like to keep track of fringe treatments. Even NCCAM does not mention it, though they do mention Sound Energy Therapy in general. Without coverage that is both independent and in-depth, this page will necessarily continue to violate either WP:SYNTH or WP:SOAPBOX, and possibly WP:SELF-PROMOTION. - Eldereft (cont.) 13:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC) See information above re: PubMed Re WP:SYNTH, WP:SOAPBOX, and possibly WP:SELF-PROMOTION, Sharry Edwards and Bioacoustic Therapy practitioners aren’t the only ones using these principals and theories which is why I included the work of Jim Gimzewski, Susan Alexjander, and Dr. David Deamer. If it would make the article more complete and acceptable I can include additional information about them and others such as:

Jim Gimzewski, a nanotechnologist at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) using an atomic force microscope to "listen" to living cells as described in the 2004 Smithsonian Magazine article “Signal Discovery” http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/10012426.html which describes how living cells may make distinct sounds, which might someday help doctors "hear" diseases. “Ratnesh Lal, a neuroscientist and biophysicist at the University of California at Santa Barbara who has studied the pulsations of heart cells kept alive in a dish, says that Gimzewski's nanotechnology expertise may be the key to establishing whether cells produce sound. "The ultimate hope is to use this in diagnostics and prevention," says Lal...”

Life Science Article: “New Way to Kill Viruses: Shake Them to Death” by Michael Schirber, posted: 05 February 2008 http://www.livescience.com/health/080205-virus-shattering.html, describing work of physicist Otto Sankey of Arizona State University. “Scientists may one day be able to destroy viruses in the same way that opera singers presumably shatter wine glasses. New research mathematically determined the frequencies at which simple viruses could be shaken to death.” This technique has been used in Bioacoustics Therapy for 20 years as described in an article originally published in Nexus Magazine October 2000 “Decloaking Pathogens With Low-Frequency Sound “

If you’d like more examples please let me know.

Delete (after ec twice) The original article, at the point it was nominated, was deeply troubled: a mess of WP:SYNTH and heavily relied upon material from Sharry Edwards, the promoter of this technique. The much-truncated state of the article is a lot better; however, the lack of material on Google Scholar is troubling: even iridology and magnet therapy get a few hundred articles each. An inclusion in the Duke Encylopedia, which describes over a 100 alternative medicine techniques, isn't that big a deal. It's difficult to tell the real notability of the subject matter: a lot of the web references loop back on themselves. The Journal of BioAcoustic Biology gets a total of nine Ghits, and the chief editor is Sharry Edwards; the director of the Sound Health Research Institute which promotes the journal is Edwards; and the Lorenger Research Institute, which promotes bioacoustics voice analysis (diagnosis?) software, also seems to link back to Edwards. — BillC talk 13:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC) As stated above, The Duke University Encyclopedia only includes 60 techniques, not “over 100” – and, again, of those 60 – only 5 don’t have pages in Wiki; of the 11 techniques listed in Chapter 20 “Energy Therapy”, the only technique that doesn’t have a Wiki article is Bioacoustic Therapy

Delete no notability (per comments above), and also fails WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE, etc, - despite clean up. Verbal chat 15:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Again, 156 hits in Google Scholar and 25 hits in Pubmed, and references in reliable sources such as Townsend Letter for Doctors and Patients, The Duke University Encyclopedia of New Medicine, Vibrational Medicine: the #1 handbook of subtle-energy therapies, ‘’Health On The Edge: Visionary Views of Healing in the New Millennium’’, The Scientific Basis of Integrative Medicine, American Academy of Audiology Annual Convention, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 2006.

This is not a complete list of all the literary references for Bioacoustics Therapy – just the ones I selected to include in the Wikipedia article.

Sure appreciate your help! --Setemb (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Imperfectly Informed
Note that there are zero hits in Google Scholar. You need to use quotes, so search for "bioacoustic therapy". Also, if you want to appeal the deletion, you can try WP:DRV, although you probably won't have any luck. II | (t - c) 08:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments from Smile a While
The problem with the searches that you carried out is that you didn't search in the form "Bioacoustics therapy", with the """". This also produces nil Scholar returns for me. By all means submit your arguments to the deleting admin. You also have an appeal avenue at WP:DRV.

However, I think that you will have better luck by developing the new version of the article at this page. You are only permitted to recreate the page (which you should do using the move button not by cut'n'paste) once you have addressed the concerns raised in the AFD (you cannot recreate an unimproved version), though a further AFD is likely. I see from your comments that you have found further references. These should be added 'in-line' to support text. In particular you need to source the final paragraph under 'Description'. HTH. Smile a While (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)