Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color light acupuncture


 * 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   keep. Sources now present are adequate. Evil saltine (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Color light acupuncture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Non notable, fringe, alt med treatment which makes no claims of notability and has no WP:RS. Clear advertising introduced by a WP:COI and probable copyright concerns despite disclaimer. Verbal chat  19:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: As Derek said, alternative practices should be described here, regardless of whether they have been conclusively proven or disproven yet. All other issues with the article can be fixed through trimming, adding, or editing.Tanesh333(talk)11:01 PM 15 September 2009 (UTC) — Tanesh333 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Delete: per above, no WP:RS in respected peer-reviewed journals listed. Leuko (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Please do not Delete this page, the issues above have been resolved. User: Roger13Zimmerman, --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No they haven't. Verbal chat  04:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What needs to be resolved?--Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * A fairly straightforward speedy delete (for advertising). This is utter nonsense without WP:RS. Irbisgreif (talk) 05:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not the place for the advertisement of pseudoscientific drivel. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as utter nonsense, unsupported by any scientific data. The article is in fact a platform for one company's advertising. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Change to keep. The article has now been substantially improved, and no longer relies solely on material lifted from a single company's publicity material. That doesn't change the fact that the therapy is nonsense unsupported by any science, but there are now at least some reliable sources referred to in the article. Colorpuncture is nonsense, but it is nonsense that does exist, and that is good enough for a WP article! But I deplore the sock-/meatpuppetry that is so much in evidence on this AFD page. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs</b> )


 * Keep it may be utter nonsense, but like other alternative practices deserves a place here where it can be described for what it is. Derek Andrews (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I have expanded and reworked some of this article, using subheads similar to Aromatherapy. Apart from the long list of further reading, I think the article is now mostly neutral, devoid of advertising and has enough references to show its notability. Lets not confuse the validity of the practice with the validity of the article, which is about a treatment many people seem to be using and others may want to learn about. Admittedly it still needs work, but I don't now believe it should be deleted.Derek Andrews (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Added sources were to ad-sites and purported studies that, upon perusal, consisted of a list of unfounded claims on efficacy sprinkled with "mind / body connect" stuff and two testimonials thinly veiled as case studies. No indication of independent coverage, no clinical trials, etc.  Edits reverted as they lack reliable sources.Simonm223 (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't believe this alternative practice to be notable. Also WP:CB.Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Nonsensical non notable advertising. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Color light acupuncture, or colorpuncture has been studied for decades. There are many alternatives to using needles to stimulate acupuncture points that are all well accepted, such as: acupressure, heat, EFT, micro- electric stimulation, even magnetism. Therefore it is unscientific to just assume that light can not be used to stimulate acupuncture points. I have put numerous references up for this article that discuss the research done on colorpuncture, and they keep getting deleted. I believe there are unfair biased readers that are trying to take down this article. Even if there isn't 100% proof that colorpuncture works, it needs to be given a chance, like every other new field.  And besides that even drugs on the market that are approved by the FDA are not considered "proven" until they stood the test of time and results. Also not believing that colorpuncture works or not is not a reason to take down this article, as Wiki is meant to be for a definition of what it is, for example "God" is listed in Wiki, there isn't 100% proof that God exists or not, but that doesn't mean it should be deleted.  I am very disappointed in how this article has evolved. Also if there are minor incorrect statements, such as use of the word "scientifically proven" and there are only 2 references stated, this is not a reason to delete my statement and to delete the 2 references, I need to be given a chance to either remove the work "scientific" or to add more references.  Also, I had numerous further readings that were deleted, again this is someone that is biased against this article.  Someone also stated that this should be included under "Alternative medicine", there are hundreds of alternative medicines, that all deserve their own article, trying to capture all of them in one article is insane.  Use some common sense before you consider deleting this article. roger13zimmerman: --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment the complete lack of empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of this treatment is a secondary issue compared to the lack of reliable sources. There is 1 third party source, a puff piece in the Taipei Times.  Nothing else.  Wikipedia is not addspace for snake oil.Simonm223 (talk) 17:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Undecided Actually, Wikipedia already has Snake oil... As to the procedure, I regard it (so far) as twaddle. However, I regard Homeopathy as even worse twaddle, but which is so widespread as to merit articling. This could be merged into Accupuncture. As it stands at time of posting this, it doesn't appear to be too much of an advert. I'll keep a watch on developments from my uncomfortable perch on this fence. Are the lights any good for curing numb bum? Peridon (talk) 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I added research articles from The American Journal of Acupuncture. They do indicate that there are good results that indicate that Color light acupuncture can promote healing. I re-iterate my argument again for the last user calling it "Snake Oil", which is that an area of practice does not need to be scientifically proven or not to be a topic for an encyclopedia. How many decades was "global warming" considered unscientifically proven before they finally agreed and accepted it (most scientists do, but some still disagree on it).  Had Wiki existed back when the "global warming" debate started, would it's position be "Global warming is not scientifically proven so just delete any articles on global warming". Think about it before you delete this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger13Zimmerman (talk • contribs) 19:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC) --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment has now voted to keep three times.  When considering for consensus keep in mind this one user represents 3 of the 4 keep statements.Simonm223 (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment My misunderstanding of how this process works, I changed my input to "comments" and left only 1 as "keep" --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not even the NCCAM mentions this practice. QuackWatch gives it (or something similar) two lines, but no other independent source appears to have noticed. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep with an eye to merging it with a Variations of acupuncture article. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Spam-originated articles merit an additional level of scrutiny. No sufficiently independent evidence of notability has been proffered.  NTK (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment When I search "Color light acupuncture" on google there are almost 14,000 results. Many of them are acupuncturists that also practice "Color light acupuncture", I'd like to reference them on Wiki, but it would likely be considered a conflict of interest and get deleted. People are using Color light acupuncture and are having positive results. It is senseless to deny anyone else from learning that it exists by deleting this article. The American Journal of Acupuncture is a notable reference.--Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sources are reliable, not notable. Google hits are meaningless.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: only a single puff-piece from outside the acupuncture community = no "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 21:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment CSICOP seems have noticed the topic; . Logos5557 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep There is a fair amount of proof to prove that color light acupuncture is a legitimate treatment and even if isn't proven it is still a real life treatment that some people believe and therefor does deserve an article. --WitKid (talk) 22:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC) — WitKid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Keep Come on guys it's still a valid topic that deserves an article.--Aaron.c.zimm (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC) — Aaron.c.zimm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  — Aaron.c.zimm (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.   (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Keep Suntanning is good for you, is it so preposterous that lights can help you? There is proof given on the article so I see no reason why it shouldn't be kept.--Pyroball (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC) — Pyroball (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Keep or merge to Acupuncture or Color therapy. I've moved the title to Colorpuncture as that is the name per nearly all the sources. I have tidied it up and add sources such as the Skeptical Inquirer, Skeptical Dictionary, Time Out. Roger13Zimmerman reverted; surely it's just a coincidence that the owner of Roze Company, who use the term "color light acupuncture", is called Roger Zimmerman? Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * p.s. Is it just me, or does this AfD smell of socks? Fences  &amp;  Windows  23:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Colorpuncture sounds like it could work, keep the Colorpuncture article, and keep posting results of tests here. Whether it works or not, keep the results for all to see, and make their own conclusion, nothing in alternative health is ever black and white. --LesaLC (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC) — LesaLC (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Comment I concur there are socky things afoot. Simonm223 (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable pseudoscience. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment To the users stating there are socky things afoot if you are referring to me, I have not claimed to NOT be part of Roze Company. I have used my own name as my user name. I have called this practice both Color light acupuncture and Colorpuncture on my website, so I don't have any conflicts of interest with either name. And just because I am trying to make a living on a practice that I believe in,  should not be a reason that Colorpuncture doesn't deserve an article in Wikipedia. The fact that myself and many other are applying this practice is even more of a reason that it should be on Wiki. And for the Nth time, just because a practice is not 100% scientifically proven is not a reason to try to hide that it even exists. There are many articles on Wiki that are not scientifically proven.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.133.115 (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)  (Sock puppet comments stricken. Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Comment It seems that you may not be familiar well with wikipedia policies and guidelines. According to WP:Paid, if there is a "paid editing", for a fair game, "All paid editors are required to disclose their paid status on both their user page and on the affected article's talk page". WP:COI. Logos5557 (talk) 05:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete obvious psuedoscience that isn't notable in the slightest. Seems to be a large population of socks and meatpuppets as well. -- M  <sup style="color:#000000;">ask?  04:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Why is this page even being considered for deletion anymore? All problems seem to be fixed. Close this discussion please. --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I see that most comments for deleting this article are because the user does not believe colorpuncture is an effective practice. Wiki has an article for Emotional Freedom Technique and is has both positive and negative research references under "Studies" and it has a "Criticism" area.  I suggest doing the same thing for this Colorpuncture article. I'd do it, but someone would likely just delete it anyway, so I suggest someone else do it. --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)--


 * Comment Wiki's rules are that the merit of the comments in this section are more important than the number of votes either way. So I'd like to present some relevant information here. I had a reference to an article on The American Journal of Acupuncture (which was deleted) that stated that there were "dramatic" improvements in the symptoms from the colorpuncture treatments:


 * The American Journal of Acupuncture Vol. 24, No. 2&3; Vol. 25, No. 2&3; and Vol. 27, No. 1&2
 * A Review of Recent Research Studies on the Efficacy of Esogetic Colorpuncture Therapy – A Wholistic Acu-Light System
 * Abstract: This article reviews recent studies conducted in Europe, which sought to evaluate the effectiveness of Peter Mandel’s Esogetic Colorpuncture Therapy (ECT). These investigations addressed the use of specific ECT therapies for treating a variety of difficult health problems: migraines, childhood insomnia, bronchitis, ADD or learning disorders, and uterine fibroids. Limitations in research design and sample size necessitate that these studies be viewed as pilot or preliminary research. However, in all the studies, the findings showed dramatic improvement of symptoms after ECT treatments. This suggests that ECT may offer fast, economical, non-invasive and non-toxic methods for treating the selected health problems and that ECT continues to show promise as a powerful new method of wholistic healing.


 * I am sure I could find many more "positive" articles on colorpuncture, and possibly "negative" articles. And as per my last comment, the reader should have the right to see both types of research. Wiki is meant to be neutral, which in my mind, means that the reader should be presented both sides and allowed to make their own opinion. It is not for Wiki's users to decide what is "correct" and only present that side of an article.


 * In alternative medicine, or even western medicine the conclusion of the effectiveness of any medicine or treatment is almost never definitive. That doesn't mean the medicine or treatment isn't worth discussing.


 * --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The American Journal of Acupuncture may not be considered as reliable third-party source. The notability of the topic should be proved/established in the first place, not whether it works or not. If the topic is notable, then the information can be presented in a neutral fashion. WP:GNG. Logos5557 (talk) 07:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Wiki's definition of "Non-notable or nn mean that the user thinks the subject fails to meet Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines either due to its obscurity or lack of differentiation from others of its type."


 * Colorpuncture is not "obscure" - if you type "colorpuncture" in Google you get 8,150 pages, and if you type in "color light acupuncture" you get 13,900 pages. There are many people practicing it worldwide. It can be easily differentiated from any other type of acupuncture. So can anyone say why this page is still being considered for deletion? --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment If the results of the research were very positive (or negative), why remain neutral and not say if the results were good or bad? This is hiding info from the reader. --Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment My reference to scientific articles and futher readings on colorpuncture were deleted from this article, yet the following unscientific statement remains in the article: "I had some weird shit happen to me during the treatment". It seems like there is a bias towards deleting any good info and leaving up things that make the colorpuncture practice look bad.--Roger13Zimmerman (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Wiki's Definition of Neutral is: "Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."


 * This states that "all views" are published by reliable sources. That means positive or negative views can be published. So the users that deleted my positive research articles on the basis of "neutrality" please put them back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger13Zimmerman (talk • contribs) 07:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources were included willy-nilly, that's why I removed them. I'll think about adding them back, but Wikipedia doesn't need to include every primary source on a topic; we base articles on secondary sources. And the "some weird shit" quote is actually supportive of colorpuncture... Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - article now seems to be neutral and well-enough sourced to me. It may be nonsense, but it appears to be notable nonsense. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. Yes, it is probably pseudoscience. Yes, there's a COI with Roger13Zimmerman. Yes, this deletion discussion is full of sock/meatpuppets. But none of those are good reasons to delete. The article is sourced and rewritten now, so "not notable" is also not valid, and Complete bollocks doesn't apply either. Argue to merge if you don't want an individual article on this topic, but arguing to delete now appears to be based on prejudice, not policy. Fences  &amp;  Windows  22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Rebuttal: no, the "independent" (i.e. from outside the acupuncture community) coverage is not "significant" -- it is just a handful of bare/brief mentions, so no, "not notable" is most certainly valid, and so is a a valid reason for deletion. Your claim of "prejudice, not policy" has no basis in either the facts or WP:AGF. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 00:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's possible to argue for deletion in good faith, but I find it very tedious to have AGF quoted at me when deletion votes of this kind are being deployed: "This is utter nonsense without WP:RS", "Wikipedia is not the place for the advertisement of pseudoscientific drivel", "obvious psuedoscience that isn't notable in the slightest". These arguments are weak and kneejerk, though there was the mitigating circumstance of Roger Zimmerman's obvious COI and POV editing. Famousdog below gives a much more nuanced argument, though damages their case by saying "I'd not heard of it", which is always a terrible argument. Notability is not a dichotomy; this therapy, however pseudoscientific, has gained significant coverage in reliable sources, it has mentions in several more reliable sources, it has published results - though I do worry for the reputation of the journals - and it has gained a fair amount of attention in the alternative health literature. If despite this coverage by independent sources one feels that the topic is insufficiently notable to stand alone, then a reasonable editor following WP:PRESERVE will consider a merge target. We have two: Color therapy and Acupuncture. I favour the former if it comes to a merge. To delete there needs to be a convincing argument for why Wikipedia should have no mention of this therapy despite all the sources that we can find that discuss it. Fences  &amp;  Windows  01:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It you don't want the 'tedium' then don't make sweeping statements like "'not notable' is also not valid" & "arguing to delete now appears to be based on prejudice, not policy". The "alternative health literature" is neither independent nor particularly reliable, and provides no basis for notability. <span style="font-family:Antiqua, serif;">HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree with me, but don't patronise me.
 * "The "alternative health literature" is neither independent nor particularly reliable, and provides no basis for notability." That's a sweeping statement. Not all alternative health publications will be financially or otherwise connected to Colorpuncture, and some will have a reputation for fact checking. Coverage of an alternative health therapy in the alternative health press is some indication of notability - it'd strengthen the argument for deletion if they hadn't covered it, but they have. Fences  &amp;  Windows  03:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment about possible socks/meatpuppets. After noticing the activity above by several one-edit newbies, and the comments about possible sock activity, I have placed a request on the pages of these users asking for comments:




 * Clarity is always a good thing. It might be a good idea for everyone to watchlist these users. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * See here. They are from the same connection, and have been admitted as meat-puppets (at least). Irbisgreif (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge with Acupuncture This is very fringe of the fringe stuff. Even as somebody with an amatuer interest in altmed and a professional interest in color vision, I have never heard of this. For those users arguing that it is "notable enough to be written about", look at the sources! A lifestyle piece for Time Out, a few papers from acupuncture journals (which are usually written, reviewed and edited by believers/practitioners), the Dictionary of Metaphysical Healthcare (mind boggles), the Chinese Medical Times (acupuncture is a source of national pride to the Chinese, which leads to a severe publication bias) ... Suffice to say this is weak evidence of efficacy, but it is also pretty weak evidence of notability. Get rid. Famousdog (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Acupuncture . Changed to Keep or Merge to Acupuncture. Notability of the topic is not strong enough to justify a separate article. It seems notability is on the edge. Although I still think that merging to Acupuncture would be the best choice, as there would be more eyes on when it's a subheading of that article, so that possible recursive spammings/adverts from some magical equipment manufacturers can be undone more rapidly, the other option is to "let it serve as a warning to potential users" as mentioned below by a user. Logos5557 (talk) 09:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - enough sources in a variety of places to merit a sentence on the acupuncture page, but that's about it. There's no WP:MEDRS to justify any claims of effectiveness, therefore no need to describe its process.  Could easily be a single sentence "Variations of acupuncutre include colorpuncture (the use of colored lights instead of needles)..."  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think it is justified to try and apply WP:MEDRS to an alternative medicine therapy. While I am not opposed to a merge, I am of the opinion that there is enough here to warrant a separate article. Derek Andrews (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. It's totally justified, as MEDRS is for medical articles. Irbisgreif (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. How about these?, , , (click to page 177) Logos5557 (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Any article making medical claims gets WP:MEDRS applied to it, otherwise alternative medical articles have an unfair advantage regards claims of effectiveness over real medicine. Those google books sources only mention the technique, they do not discuss in detail, provide any substantive information, and certainly don't support any claims of efficacy.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 11:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * As it stands now, this article doesn't make any medical claims, it merely describes a practise that has been in use for several decades. The article, as it stands, is a good warning to anyone considering using it, that they should proceed with caution. Is it not better that this article exists to counter misleading marketing for the practise? Derek Andrews (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a discussion under way at MEDRS talk about references for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Derek Andrews (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin – User:LesaLC, User:Tanesh333, User:Pyroball, User:Aaron.c.zimm, User:WitKid have all been indefinitely blocked as sock puppets of User:Roger13Zimmerman (who has been blocked for 1 week for engaging in sock puppetry). MuZemike 21:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Clearly the actual procedure is no more than one way among many of fleecing the vulnerable and gullible sick of their cash. But it certainly does exist. Having said that, in my view it is merely one among a myriad of charlatan-practised procedures and, as such, is not intrinsically notable. Very few meaningful Ghits and I, as a medical practitioner in the UK, have never heard of it. Closing admin please note that the author is the same editor who appears in a variety of sockpuppet guises throughout this discussion, who clearly shows a conflict of interest. --<b style="color:red;">Anthony.bradbury</b><sup style="color:black;">"talk" 12:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Most of the originating author's work to whom you refer has now been deleted or modified.Derek Andrews (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:IDONTKNOWIT is an argument to avoid. Ghits are irrelevant. Nobody is trying to argue that it has intrinsic notability; the argument to keep or merge is based on coverage in sources. Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:36, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete violates most of the content policies I can think of and looks like no chance of saving. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Would you care to state which policies and how it violates them? Fences  &amp;  Windows  00:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources don't reveal enough notability. Fringe kicks in quite a bit. This is really scrapping at the bottom to justify anything on the topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's a notable form of nonsense, delusional thinking, utter BS, pseudoscience, and quackery. Its notability is very adequately established by numerous fringe sources. (That's where our sourcing rules for FRINGE articles apply. Fringe sources create the notability.) How those sources are to be used in the article is governed by WEIGHT (IOW not much at all since they aren't WP:MEDRS, while the few mainstream sources that give it very passing mention are given prominence). Keep it and let it serve as a warning to potential users who are getting suckered by false advertising. This is an unfortunate part of the sum total of human knowledge and belief, and at Wikipedia it is our job to cover it all, including nonsense. Brangifer (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep notable enough to keep, barely.  Numerous fringe sources are enough for articles on fringe.  Many of the delete arguments do seem to be based on the fact that this is even stupider than the average, which is something aI heartily agree with, but it doesn't  affect notability for our purposes.    DGG ( talk ) 03:50, 21 September 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.