Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonghan theory


 * 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. Tone 13:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Bonghan theory

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

No independent notability. The main source is a June 2009 article that describes the theory as "newly discovered". Could be stripped down and merged with any of the acupuncture articles, but in current form can only be deleted. JFW | T@lk  17:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: The article claims that this goes back to 1961. Google Groups apparently shows mention of this from 23 Mar 2001 and 4 Apr 2001 ( http://groups.google.co.uk/group/talk.politics.medicine/browse_thread/thread/75e7ef2d34798297/cc06a251395c8286?hl=en&q=bonghan --- http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.meditation.qigong/browse_thread/thread/ecb0b8d7e093726/242393628ae4d922?hl=en&q=bonghan ). In other words, this new article doesn't have cites, but it might be possible for someone to produce cites. (If no one does, then article should be deleted per Verifiability.) -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 19:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - the same user that created this article also created Bonghan system. I saw at the time that the two were identical, so I changed that article to just be a redirect to Bonghan theory. It might be worthwhile for someone to research that term as well:
 * It think also might be worth a look by someone over at WP:FTN, so I put up a request there for opinions. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It think also might be worth a look by someone over at WP:FTN, so I put up a request there for opinions. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It think also might be worth a look by someone over at WP:FTN, so I put up a request there for opinions. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep/rename This shows up reasonably well on Google Scholar. However it appears that it should be named Bonghan system. Mangoe (talk) 22:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete It is really just one more therapy that someone markets to resounding silence. It is not nearly notable enough except maybe to be mentioned somewhere in the acupuncture family of articles. No prejudice to recreation if they do attract in depth coverage from independent sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 22:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep, here are some sources to begin with:, , , , , . There are likely many more on the subject, as I obtained those from a quick glance. The theory is obviously notable, and within our guidelines. –blurpeace (talk) 06:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears to be some vaguely new-age spin on acupuncture but I don't think it's particularly notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonm223 (talk • contribs) 10:29, 21 August 2009
 * Delete as unreferenced, because even with the sources Blurpeace found, I think it's clear the article would pretty nearly have to start over from scratch in order to pass verifiability. For anyone with access to those links (most aren't publically viewable) and enough time on their hands to build the article up to standards, I think it should definitely be made available, but I don't think it's right to just let it stay on Wikipedia almost unentirely unreferenced, which is what it is now. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 17:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable WP:FRINGE theory seeking to gain attention by using public forums of discussion rather than through academic journals. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 17:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. –blurpeace (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - after looking at this since it was nom'd, I'm coming down on the side of the deletionists. The article has zero sourcing, and there's been no attempt to add more to the article . User:Lovephysicsinkaist, the original editor (an SPA), hasn't been heard from since, and he's the only one who has added any content (encyclopedic or otherwise). Don't salt it, but in its current state, it's not an article at all. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 21:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, please see WP:RUBBISH and WP:NOEFFORT. We cleanup bad looking articles, not delete them. Though this one does require a rewrite. –blurpeace (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2009 (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.