Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banana Therapy

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:40, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Banana Therapy

 * Delete or otherwise merge with Banana or Therapy -- Stancel 18:09, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Banana is not a medical article, and Therapy is a bad article that should be converted into a proper disambiguation page. ("Therapy" has too many meanings to be documented in a single article.) The only real issue is whether "Banana Therapy" actually exists, or is just something somebody heard of somewhere. That's being dealt with by the existing PoV debate, which really deserves more than 34 minutes (the amount of time between the PoV and VfD edits) to work. We shouldn't use VfDs to resolve issues that can be handled by other means -- or are already being handled by other means!!!! Isaac R 18:48, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I have missed the whole intention of an encyclopedia, but "something somebody heard of somewhere" as an inclusion criterion? That makes it encyclopedic?  Personally, I would probably have preferred  to , as it's not a matter of conflicting sources but no sources given at all.  But then again, I have seen  articles simply sit that way for over a year.  VfD at least puts it on a timetable.  If it is a critical subject, surely someone will supply something to back it up before the VfD period elapses? --Tabor 21:36, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that we don't want "I heard it somewhere" articles. But we also don't want to be too hasty in rejecting an article as "obviously" bogus. Better to give people a chance to give actual sources. &#182; I also agree that would have been more appropriate than  . But whoever did the POV described the issue correctly, and that's what's important. &#182; A VfD debate may leave enough time for the article to be beefed up -- or maybe not. That's all beside the point. We have too many of VfD debates, they use up too much of everybody's time, and they cause way too many bad feelings. It's better to give people a chance to thrash out this kind of issue offline. That's why we have policies for less drastic action. Obviously those policies shouldn't allow a bad article to hang around for a year (or more than a month), and you'd be perfectly justified in VfDing such an article. But you have to give it longer than 34 minutes!Isaac R 22:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, and if the information can be verified and sourced, merge with banana.--Heathcliff 21:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with Banana. Megan1967 07:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * LOL. But delete anyway. Radiant_* 08:11, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's short, has no real content, is PoV and (as discussed above) disputed with no sources. --BradBeattie 13:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless source(s) can be provided. -- Krash 20:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete It's short enough to merge elsewhere but, again, with sources Sonic Mew 20:06, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources, not verified.  Quale 09:28, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. No sources.  As I skimmed the Google search results (205 total), there only seemed to be one medical article on it.  The other hits were discussions of the "I heard of this.  Is there anything to it?" variety, various annecdotal claims, and unrelated hits.  Xcali 20:12, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
 * This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.