Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioacoustics therapy


 * 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Bioacoustics therapy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (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, 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&#39;s Holiday (talk) 02:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Shoemaker&#39;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)
 * 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&#39;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)


 * Delete or stubify... Zero hits for "bioacustic therapy" in google scholar . 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)
 * Delete Fails WP:FRINGE. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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&#39;s Holiday (talk) 09:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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. &mdash; BillC talk 13:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * 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.