Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alphabiotics


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Alphabiotics

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable (see google news and google scholar). Only 4 sources, all of which are primary, none of which are reliable. Tagged for COI editing since August 2008. Is not written from a neutral point of view. Includes content which can be considered a violation of WP:BLP. ← Spidern  →  16:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. This page is particularly enlightening. Also, based on the official site, it appears that there's still not much more practioners then when said publication made a count of 75 practioners in 2002. In short: this is a fringe theory without wide traction and there don't appear to be enough reliable sources to write a balanced article on the topic. - Mgm|(talk) 22:56, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

--Trisfb (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)(this section added by the article's author in response to the above text)- I went about editing it originally because the initial wikipedia definition was totally inaccurate. The attempt was to create a definition for something which is based on a non-linear paradigm and eludes simple definition. If you want to delete the entire entry feel free - just don't publish inaccuracies please. I'd say the article is neutral unless you can site an example of where non-neutrality was used? The Chirobase link is inaccurate is it refers to a person not certified to perform Alphabiotics. I'm sure you wouldn't link an article under medicine about someone who wasn't a qualified doctor? Please can you qualify what you mean by fringe? And also that which is referred to 'content violation' I am very happy to oblige in editing this article for improvement. 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. Not enough coverage by independent reliable sources, does not pass WP:N. Also valid WP:BLP concerns, especially in view of the link provided by Mgm. Nsk92 (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

--Trisfb (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Regarding the Biography of a living person conflict can you please be specific as I know the 'living person' and can seek his approval on any content. I'm not sure if stress reduction is fringe theory? Can you please be specific with your reference to 'fringe' so the article may be improved or clarified. Notability is difficult for this subject matter, and if suggestions can be made I am open to them? Thank you.
 * Delete, per nomination. Half of the article is a totally unsourced WP:BLP, which should even qualify for speedy deletion. The other half is a description of, wait a moment, unifying body and soul by lying down for 15-30 seconds while having your head twisted by 10 degrees... unfortunately my English is not good enough to provide for an applicable polite word.--Pgallert (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

--Trisfb (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Which half of the article are you refering to please? (That is unsourced) I need specifics please to modify the article. There is no mention of 'unifying body and soul' so I am confused as to your source for that comment. Can you please re-read the article carefully as the terms I have used are very specific. Also there is no mention of twisting the head. In fact the article says "the lack of twisting". Many thanks.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2008 (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.