Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collateral Meridian 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.  MBisanz  talk 00:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Collateral Meridian Therapy

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

Non-notable practice that has not achieved sufficient outside references
 * Please also seethis explanation from MastCell--Tznkai (talk) 06:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- Ray (talk) 08:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep 3 decent sources + a medical association, plus the fact that this is an Asian thing is good enough for me. Since it is Asian, it's quite likely that there's more coverage over there. II  | (t - c) 09:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * DELETE. One should not allow such a promotion of an unproven, questionable therapy of a chronic progressive disease such as CRPS in Wikipedia. When one reads the text on CRPS, one might assume that Collateral Meridian Therapy is a therapy recognised by leading authorities in the field and nothing could be further from the truth. NONE of the authorities dealing with evidence-based medicine recognises this unproven idea as a valid therapeutic option.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Filipana (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Per the discussion by MastCell, it looks to me like this is not something that has received significant coverage in secondary sources independent of the subject, as the first two references in the article are most definitely self-promotional and written by the author. The Taipei Times article is legitimate, but the guideline wants more than one secondary source. I do not regard concerns about the scientific validity of the technique to be a good reason for deletion; that sort of thing we usually take care of in the body of the article, not at AfD. Ray (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete as per RayAYang. Not to parrot Ray, but the third source is the only one of the sources that is any good, and it doesn't assert very much notability at all. Couldn't find anything else that wasn't self-published on Google and Google Scholar, either (not that Google is everything). My conclusion is that this treatment isn't yet at the stage where it's notable enough for Wikipedia, but that could change in the future. -kotra (talk) 21:19, 12 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.