Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acupuncture point


 * 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   keep. Consensus seems fairly clear. if there is a problem with its status as a content fork, that is something which should first be addressed through editing and then through deletion. Ironholds (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Acupuncture point

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Clear WP:CONTENTFORK - There is not any content that should be in acupuncture point that should not already be in acupuncture. The article has no basis for independent existence and should be
 * Merged and redirected to acupuncture. There is already a place for minute details about points, List of acupuncture points.


 * Per WP:CONTENTFORK, if you have specific content that should be in acupuncture point, and not be in acupuncture, please provide it, and I will change my vote to "keep", but if you cannot, you should reconsider any "keep" vote per WP:CONTENTFORK. (An ad homonym comment on my own edits is irrelevant to consideration.) PPdd (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There are several problems to this approach. First, as you admit, "acupuncture" is alternative medicine, which may not agree with science. Thus, arguing that sources do not agree with WP:MEDRS is fallacious. Second, you have basically deleted the whole article before bringing it up for AfD, which is not only misleading but more so deceptive. Third, you have deleted statements that have been sourced with peer-reviewed journals such as Hindawi. Sorry, but your case is a simple "I don't like it". Nageh (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, before your deceptive deletion of most of the content there was sufficient material that was not in the acupuncture article. Our policies explicitly state that should an article become too long it should be split. Nageh (talk) 19:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please apologize for accusing me being "deceptive", which is synonymous with bad faith. PPdd (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Did I say "you are deceptive"? Would you please stay to the facts instead of turning around what I said, just as below? Your behavior was deceptive, whether intentional or not. Because with the little content there was left after your mass deletion a merge or redirect was obvious, whereas before it was definitely not. Nageh (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your behavior here is offensive, Nageh. Rather than assuming bad faith and playing the man, why don't you address the point that the onus is on those defending dubious biomedical claims to find reliable sources for those claims? That is, do some reading, do some work, don't just fling offensive shit around. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Nageh apologized... and more, sincerely reconsidered and changed his vote! :) PPdd (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect I agree. The main article and List of acupuncture points have this covered already. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  18:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect Pretty clear choice - and probably could have been done as WP:BOLD without an AfD, since the whole point (pun intended) of acupuncture is just that. First Light (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Try to WP:Bold anything which could be even be slightly argued against, in a pseudoscience article, and its edit war time. PPdd (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought this was pretty bold. But I agree with it. All you seem to have done is remove unsourced assertion and stuff that is covered elsewhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It was actually pretty timid. What I actually did was come to acupunctre point expecting to find content that should also be in acupuncture, where I have been adding huge amounts of RS content and MEDRS sources. As you can see from this, each time I came across a WP:MEDRS statement, or a NRS statement, I deleted it, knowing how the identical statement was treated by consensus at acupuncture. You can see that I spent time considering the line of text, and gave it an individualized edit summary, step by step, timid as a mouse. When I was done, there was nothing left, and I realized the acupuncture point article had no basis for independent existence from acupuncture. Then, instead of WP:boldly doing a redirect, I timidly put it here for public consideration. So maybe I am too timid . :)  PPdd (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect sounds about right, especially since List of acupuncture points already exists. Melchoir (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep WP:AFD states emphatically, "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.". The nominator should please not bring every bold edit he wishes to make to AFD.  AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden, per WP:CONTENTFORK, what specific content should be in acupuncture point, and not be in acupuncture. Provide it and I will change my vote to "keep", but if you cannot, you should reconsider your vote per WP:CONTENTFORK. (An ad homonym comment on my own edits is irrelevant to consideration.) PPdd (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden, your comment is completely nonresponsive to the 2 reasons stated above to redirect. WP:MEDRS is every bit as important as WP:BLP when it comes to WP:BURDEN, and trying to circumvent consensus on a delete by NRS or NMEDRS at acupuncture, by simply copying ans pasting to acupuncture point, as clearly happened by identical sentences, violates not only MEDRS and RS, but CONSENSUS. Also see my reply to Anthonycole above, and Nageh below. Please apologize for your personal attack calling me a "butcher", as it is uncivil and violates WP:Etiquette. PPdd (talk) 20:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the appropriate section of Acupuncture. No point in saying the same stuff twice. Colonal Warden, per PPdd, if the appropriate section at Acupuncture becomes too big, then is the time to create a sub-article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This article has existed for 7 years and was quite substantial until recently. PPdd has butchered most of the content and now seeks to delete its history while it is a mutilated state.  He seems to believe that cut/paste copies are acceptable in such cases but they are not.  I shall now revert this butchery so that editors may fully understand what is being proposed here. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you watch your tone please? PPdd is a serious, neutral, good-faith editor. Restoring unsourced and poorly sourced biomedical claims in any article is grossly irresponsible. If you think any of the deleted content should be in the encyclopedia, the onus is on you to provide appropriate sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit: Redirect to main article following discussion. Nageh (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Nageh (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Challenging material does NOT mean that you should delete everything from an article down to its bones and then bring it to AfD. In fact, WP:V says that material must be verifiable, which does not imply that it must be verified. This is not an WP:BLP article, and the behavior of User:PPdd is exactly the reason why real contributors (those adding content) get pissed off from Wikipedia. Yes, not sourcing something is not good behavior based on our policies and guidelines, but if you delete something you should have a reason for deletion. Also read WP:Responsible tagging, which tangents this issue. Nageh (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If you don't agree with the existence of acupuncture points this is your problem. Add controversy to the article but don't delete just because you don't like it. Nageh (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An [[WP:C90=yes; hidesnmessage=1; centraln no way responds to the two reasons for redirecting given above'''.
 * As it stood, the acupuncture point article was being used as a vehicle to avoid RS, MEDRS, and BURDEN policies and guidelines, by moving a deleted by consensus edit as NMEDRS at the acupuncture article, to the less watched acupuncture point article, which has no independent justification for existence except a means of circumventing consensus.
 * Saying I am not a "real contributor" not only violates WP:Etiquette, it is a flat out false misrepresentation of my contribution history, where over 90% of my edits have been adding content, or adding RS without regard to the POV of the line I am providing citation for. Also, any edit I make is stepwise, with each step having a specific edit summary, as demonstrated in my reply to Anthonycole above.
 * I do not recall ever being in an edit war, or of having been accused of coming close to edit warring.
 * My NPOV editing history at alt med articles is clear as in the highly edit war prone homeopathy-related pseudoscience article anthroposophical medicine, where after my many edits I got these unsolicited comments from both edit-warring POV sides, resulting in this, and the article has been unchanged ever since.
 * Furthermore, I was accused recently of putting too many "citation needed" tags, and WP:MEDRS is every bit as important as WP:BLP when it comes to WP:BURDEN, as per my reply to Colonel Warden above.
 * Nageh, please apologize. PPdd (talk) 20:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not accuse you of not being a "real contributor", I was criticizing your behavior. Anyway, if you felt this to be an uncivil attack on you, this was not intended, and I apologize for this. I am just seeing it too often lately that people are deleting simply because something was unreferenced. In addition, what set me up was that you deleted statements that were referenced with peer-reviewed sources. The way I see it is that acupuncture points discusses the traditional Eastern model of acupuncture and not the Western world science aspects. As such, arguing with WP:MEDRS does not imply, IMO. What you may ask is whether a discussion of these traditional thoughts are notable and should be kept or not and be brought up for deletion. But this should be done before almost all content gets deleted. Hope this clarifies the issue. (So maybe you can explain why the previous content was not notable?) Nageh (talk) 20:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I gave an edit summary for each deletion, so I would need to know which deletion you are talking about to reply, but you should bring it up at the talk page, not here, and I will reply there. I only came to the acupuncture point article looking for more content that I might add to acupuncture. I found no content whatsoever that was not already at acupuncture, and only broght it here, instead of a bold redirect, to have participation, if I might be missing something about why content might be at acupuncture point and not at acupuncture. MEDRS certainly does apply, especially as there are reports of medical sutdies. I started deleting things that had already been deleted by consensus at acupuncture, or had no sources at all. I made no distinction as to the POV of the unsourcded edit, but itemized the edit summaries. You should reconsider your opposition to redirecting, unless you have a particular edit in mind that should not be in acupuncture. PPdd (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we can work this out. See talk page of this AfD. Nageh (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect: Blatant WP:CONTENTFORK. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - Note that two editors are reinstated deleted material that was either totally usourced, or already deleted at acupuncture as WP:NRS, nonWP:MEDRS, or overtly POV, and all by clear consensus there, and all in violation of WP:BURDEN. There is no RS or MEDRS content in acupuncture point that is not in acupuncture, or that was not deleted at accupuncture by consensus for violating MEDRS. PPdd (talk) 21:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith, just as you are requesting by others. If you could lay out in which way this article is a content fork, where the forked material has been contested as POV on the main article's talk page, and maybe you could answer my questions on the discussion page. Thanks. Nageh (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not only am I assuming good faith, I am assuming one of us will change their votes, or I wouldn't be engagin in so much discussion. Vote pages are filled with my striking out my own vote and changing it to the opposite after discussion, or someone else I am discussing with striking out their own vote. From the first two sentences of WP:CONTENTFORK - "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided." And I responded to you at this discussion's talk page. PPdd (talk) 22:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Nageh (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Seems like plausible subtopic under acupuncture. And let's not remove all the content from it please User:PPdd, until after the discussion.  I've restored the 90% that you removed.  Just because it's an alternative to standard western medicine doesn't mean that wikipedia can't cover it encyclopedically.  Dicklyon (talk) 23:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, per WP:CONTENTFORK, what specific content should be in acupuncture point, and not be in acupuncture. Provide it and I will change my vote to "keep", but if you cannot, you should reconsider your vote per WP:CONTENTFORK. (An ad homonym comment on my own edits is irrelevant to consideration.) PPdd (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yaaaaaargh... and after all that time with Nageh.... maybe I shouldn't have collapsed all that stuff above yet. The only reason the article was nominated for deletion is that when it was examined line by line, almost nothing was left in it that was OK by Wiki standards, so I brought it up here to delete the rest and redirect, instead of boldly redirecting it (like I maybe should have). Dicklyon, I know your restoration is in good faith, but please see here, and the extensive discussion of everything that was deleted from acupuncture point, discussed in detail on the talk pages of acupuncture. Also check out the collapsed discussions on this page, which were collapsed because they related to the content deleted from the page. Note that Nageh above originally voted to "keep", but after spending much time looking at reasons why to merge, he changed his vote to "redirect". The current content in acupuncture point can not stay in for the various reasons in the links just given, so having an article that appears full and well referenced is misleading, since when examined line by line it ends up looking like what you just reverted. The acupuncture point article is just a hiding place for things that subtly don't meet Wiki standards, and were repeatedly deleted by consensus, as in the archives of Talk:Acupuncture, then got WP:CONTENTFORKed to acupuncture point to hide from watch lists. There is no content in the acupuncture point article that is allowed, and which is not already in acupuncture. And if and after you read all that stuff, please consider changing your "keep" vote to "redirect". PPdd (talk) 23:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't been following this discussion, and am not familiar with the article and its history, but when I look there I see that the article had a substantial size, and a substantial participation of anti-acupucture editors, for over 5 years. So I don't see how you can say it's a hiding place or an improper content fork.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Look Dicklyon... I mean "look here Dicklyon", because if you don't look there, you will have to look up and to the south, and if it was not dark out right now you would see a big cubical building silouetted against the sky on top of the Santa Cruz mountains, and to the left of that building across the Sierra Azul at the southern end, you will see a big bunch of antennaes on three peaks that are close to each other, and the middle peak is my land, and its covered with this white fluffy stuff from last night that you normally don't see when you look up, so if you don't look here, you will have to look up because I will throw a big snowball at you, and if the snow melts too soon, I will build a giant tessla coil up here and be able to hurl lightning bolts down just like zeus, so heads up... I mean look up, that link. :) PS, I know that it looks like I deleted stuff and then called a straw man vote, but I did not, as explained in the collapsed sections above (above this writing, not above on the mountain top above you). PPdd (talk) 05:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and restore. Although you'd never guess from the recent state of the article, there are whole books written on this specific subject.  90% of the article content, including 18 sources to scholarly journal articles like, was removed—IMO incorrectly and even tendentiously—by the nom.  Of course it looks like nothing now:  PPdd deleted 23,000 bytes of sourced material immediately before nomming this for deletion, and he is now edit warring to keep the information out.  I recommend that all the editors look carefully at the article history rather than merely glancing over the shell that PPdd left you.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, per WP:CONTENTFORK, what specific content should be in acupuncture point, and not be in acupuncture. Provide it and I will change my vote to "keep", but if you cannot, you should reconsider your vote per WP:CONTENTFORK. (An ad homonym comment on my own edits is irrelevant to consideration.) PPdd (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Judging from their comments, I think everybody on this page has read the article history (except for Dicklyon) and has made an informed vote. Please read the collapsed sections of this discussion and the discussion on this AfD's talk page, if you haven't already. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * True; I now admit to being thoroughly confused, and am going to stay out of it. Dodging snowballs from Mt. Umunhum or thereabouts. Dicklyon (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, you can't stay out since your vote is in. And you can take the snowball and put syrup on it and sell it to someone as a snowcone. And if you keep your edit-contribution historic well-reasoning head in this, I will tell you the story about how I snuck in to that Mt. Umanmum facility, which makes Area 51 look normal, by voluntering to be the pole man for the USGS, who were entering that strange abandoned military facility to do survey work. Talk about surreal! PPdd (talk) 07:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the very first example of what I deleted, a whacked out medical conclusion from a primary source pro-acu study published in a journal that says, -
 * ''"Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that seeks to understand the sources and to encourage rigorous research in this new, yet ancient world of complementary and alternative medicine."
 * WhatamIdoing calls this "well sourced" in his edit summary for his WP:BURDEN violating revert. Then he says to me -
 * "PPdd, you apparently have seriously misunderstood the MEDRS guideline. I suggest that you stop deleting material, from this or any other article."
 * with no specificiy whatsoever. Then he goes around accusing me of bad faith edit warring and tendentiousness.
 * WhatamIdoing, please apologize for your etiquette violations in your personal attacks on me. PPdd (talk) 07:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing, if this article you want to keep is not clearly WP:CONTENTFORK redundancy, please cite just one RS sentence that should go in to acupuncture point, but should not go in to acupuncture. PPdd (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep There is a huge difference between the acupuncture article, which is mainly about the history of the practice and its origins and how it formed and acupuncture points, which are a specific subject that does not seem to have merely copied information from the higher level article. It is also easily referenced and sufficiently so already. Shame on the nominator for this series of edits. We do not remove sourced information and then take an article to AfD because it is "empty". This is tendentious editing, is pointy, and is in extremely bad faith to the purpose of Wikipedia. Silver  seren C 16:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Silver seren, per WP:CONTENTFORK, what specific content should be in acupuncture point, and not be in acupuncture. Provide it and I will change my vote to "keep", but if you cannot, you should reconsider your vote per WP:CONTENTFORK. (An ad homonym comment on my own edits is irrelevant to consideration.) PPdd (talk) 16:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - though the current page is problematic, there are myriad sources on the topic and it would be a good article to expand with details that are only covered in the broadest strokes on the main acupuncture page. Please note the current version with much of the objectionable content removed, a middling rewrite and several new sources added.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WLU, shouldn't there be independent content existing before creating a forked daughter page, per WP:CONTENTFORK, and shouldn't the daughter article only be created after the parent article starts to delete content per WP:UNDUE that could go in the daughter but not the parent? If so, what is it? Otherwise this "daughter article", which entirely duplicates acupuncture, except that it also has things and wording deleted from acupuncture as NRS or POV (exactly what WP:CONTENTFORK exists to stop). PPdd (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We should generally follow the rules, but are free to ignore them if it means improving the encyclopedia. I think in this case, we should.  It's frankly hard to tell what's in one page versus another anymore given the extremely, I would say overly, bold editing taking place.   But acupuncture points is a very good place to delve into the details that we should gloss over in the main acupuncture page.  We aren't beholden to any one particular approach regarding parent and daughter pages - we can start with the detailed pages and from there write a more general one, or start with a general page and expand the details in a daughter article.  Even if the two articles cite exactly the same sources, that doesn't mean the text that accompanies those sources must be identical.
 * As for what content should be at acupuncture point and not acupuncture - details. Acupuncture point can go in to much greater detail than the main article can or should.  PPdd, though I think your edits were necessary and good, I think this AFD nomination was not.  It will probably fail, and I'm actually in favour of that.  The article has been thoroughly gutted, and a preliminary skeleton has been established for what could be a very respectable separate page.  Perhaps it's time to stop arguing and see what the poor closing admin says.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with WLU: Acupuncture should have a Main-tagged WP:SUMMARY of the concept, but limited to just a few paragraphs.  The article in question should contain a full, encyclopedic description of acupuncture points, including the different ways that significant sources conceptualize the points, any disagreements over which points are where, and scientific evidence for or against both the concept and the individual claims.  The same approach should also be used in Acupressure and other closely connected articles:  all of them should summarize and point to this article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - It is best for an AfD discussion to accurately see what an article will look like, not what it appears to be. WLU made well explained, step by step edits. His edits will stick, so the version of the article as he edited it is best for the AfD discussion. PPdd (talk) 20:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

* Proposed consensus compromise - The only argument to keep is that there is a potential for the article to not violate WP:CONTENTFORK redundancy. The best argument to redirect so far is that it is now completely redundant, and has a very high potential to be a WP:CONTENTFORK violating base camp for POVpushers not satisfied with deletions of their POV and NRS content at acupunture, especially as this has historically been the case. I suggest a compromise to avoid the latter. Keep the artricle up for its potenital not to violate WPCONTENTFORK "redundancy", but set controls for its potential refuge for WPCONTENTFORK POV and NRS abuse from those seeking to avoid deletions on those bases at acupuncture. The control I propse setting is a FAQ at this articles talk page that this article is not to contain claims of efficacy, and if someonee wants to make such claims, they must do so at acupuncture, which is about medical treatment, not points. It is very unlikely that a claim of efficacy related to any acupuncture point allowed in her, will not be allowed at acupuncture. Otherwise, this article seems to be a good one to use as the basic example in the WP:CONTENTFORK guideline, that of an article that is completely redundant, and also of one that has been historically used to put in POV and NRS violating content. PPdd (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Infeasable proposal per WAID comment at talk page
 * PPdd, perhaps the best way for you to address this, and address the comments of other editors on the page, is to see if you can improve the page by expanding it rather than deleting or redirecting it. I think your solution is too proscriptive and portrays the issue as settled, while I would characterize the scientific consensus as skeptical, but open to evidence.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm trying, but I can't think of any lieterature I have read that divorces points from acupuncture itself, although theoretically possible to do so as a level of detail. Te first thing that happened when I went to the acupoint article to try to expand it, per your suggestion, was to see at the outset a false and completely NRS sentence, which I deleted, and soon next up is a sentence is a biomed assertion based on a single study published in an acupuncture journal, so should be reworded into a statement about beliefs of the author as to what biomed conclusions should be drawn from the study, and the sentence is better put in the acupuncture article. I do see one study, which found negative results for two meridians, and positive for one meridian, but it only had 28 people in it, a very small sample size, especially in the context of the thousands of subjects and billions of dollars spent in the massive attempt to try to find some effect of acupuncture, however trivial. And all this did was find significance in 28 people for one meridian, but not the other two meridians tested. A different 28 people might easily not have this significance.
 * In any case, if a "single primary source study with a sample size of 28" is not WP:UNDUE, this same info should also be in the acupuncture article, and I am surprised that it is not already (I have not checked, yet). PPdd (talk) 11:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - One possible way I see for this article not to be a flat out WP:CONTENTFORK is illustrated by an analogy between acupuncture-stimulations-points and coin-heads-tails. For any coin, there is usually a head and a tail. It is difficult to divorce the head from the coin. A coin article is about heads and tails. But a daughter article for coins might be "heads", discussing historic head designs of coins, and not tail design. Similarly, the acupuncture article is about stimulation of points, so is about both. Ordinarily for any stimulation, there is a point, and for any point, a stimulation. But theoretically, there could be a discussion of points divorced from stimulation. This would argue for a third article called acupuncture stimulation methods. I think this is a giant stretch, and the most WP:COMMONSENSE attitude is that this article is a pure and simple CFORK, and more, paradigmatically CFORK, but maybe other editors who have more thoroughly read up the literature, like WLU, have ideas I have not thought of and can bring specificity to what I have called "theoretically". In any event, this whole justification for "keep" discussion is theoretical, as the article as it now stands, or as it ever stood, even with the NRS and POV content added back in, is pure CFORK. All there is right now is a theoretical potential to find detailed content that should not go in the acupuncture article, but should go in the acupuncture point or theoretical acupuncture stimulation methods articles. PPdd (talk) 11:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't feel like retreading this same ground. The page will almost certainly not be deleted at this point, it was a borderline case throughout, and though articles may not be solely about acupuncture points, they can still be mined for information just on the points themselves to give greater detail.  AFD pages are not the place for lengthy debates once it's clear a page passes WP:N, which I believe this one does.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:14, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Appropriate expansion of detail that will not belong in the main article. As mentioned above, there are sources to show that this subtopic is separately notable.    DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It certainly needs some trimming to avoid content forking and too much overlap with the main acupuncture article, but there is certainly information in this article that would not be fitting in the main one, and as long as it's accurate and well sourced I believe it should stay.--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I just plain do not see forked content. I saw a four-paragraph section on 'points' in Acupuncture, and expected it to be a precis of this article's lead, or something, but it is not. Perhaps you could quote some examples.
 * Generally speaking, this is the same situation as at the Astrology articles. Believers add info and deletors in the service of science delete it. What the deletors do not understand, and the believers, well, probably do not appreciate either, is that it is a cultural entity that has notability outside of the issue of whether it is true or not. Both astrology and acupuncture have been studied for thousands of years, had influence over the culture of their times equivalent to priests or pundits, and have amassed bodies of literature which are considerable feats, for studies that predate the printing press. By contrast, the belief in the Flat Earth is a slightly dull history of short duration, narrow focus, and miniscule documentation, that is only notable because of its death struggle with the truth, which occupies the majority of an 82Kb article. Anarchangel (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.