Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical somatics


 * 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. Shimeru (talk) 08:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Clinical somatics

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

I do not think this is notable, though the book mentioned here is in a few hundred libraries. Apparently a small medical cult, no independent references I have been able to find. If it is notable, the other two articles should be merged into it.  DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Although there's not much here, and the article doesn't source beyond the two books, it's clear that Dr. Thomas L. Hanna's methods for are widely referred to in publications about pain management . This probably can be rescued.   Mandsford (talk) 14:28, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not see the reason for deleting this artcle. Clinical Somatics is a forerunner of such present day respectable philosophical schools as somaesthetics (Richard Shusterman), part of a larger "turn to the body" in philosophy and cognitive science (Mark Johnson, Shaun Gallagher, Maxine Sheets-Johnstone, and others). Thomas Hanna himself was, I believe, a perfectly ordinary professional philosopher before turning to practical bodywork. The link between his two careers may be (I haven't read it) his "Bodies in revolt". The interest in embodiment current philosophy goes back to such respectable figures as John Dewey and Maurice Merleau-Ponty. Well, I hope I did this right. It is the first time I enter into a debate about an article in Wikipedia.  (comment added by Jacob Hilden Winslow)
 * Looks like the first time you've contributed anything to Wikipedia. .  It is somewhat unusual when a person's first contribution is a comment in the AfD forum, so I'm wondering how you found the debate.  I took the liberty of placing the comment after Gene93k's addition, rather than at the top of the page, and putting on the label (you're arguing keep).  Normally I don't tamper with other people's edits, but this is a matter of display.  Always make sure to sign the comment with what they call the "four tildas" (You add the symbol ~ four times-- on many keyboards, it's a key in the upper left hand corner, above the tab key).  In any event, Happy editing.  Mandsford 12:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as not notable. No hits on PubMed or Scholar; no relevant press coverage -- hits are press releases. This is a proprietary term (marked as trademark in some press releases) and Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
 * Delete. Something has gone wrong with the find sources template, which is now letting press releases through. All the Google News returns are spam. Abductive  (reasoning) 03:03, 20 May 2010 (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.