Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eco-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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Eco-somatics

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Not notable. I can't find any independent reliable sources for this. Google finds some blogs about it but none of them seem both independent and reliable. Google news returns 0 hits and 1 mention of the creator Sandra Reeve. D•g Talk to me/What I've done 15:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There are a few Google books and Google scholar hits, so I think its notable enough to warrant an article. It certainly needs cleaning up, though. — out of focus 15:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I looked into these in more depth; they seem to trace back to a single conference paper that is only sparsely referenced; I explain more in my comments below. Cazort (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete The sources I can find are either trivial mentions, about another topic entirely, or are otherwise unusable. I could of course be convinced otherwise if someone else can find and add good sources, but this could probably have been dealt with via WP:PROD. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge This seems to be a fringe topic and neologism that has not yet broken into the realm of notability. It seems this conference paper is a key source (possibly the originator of the term?):   All other occurrences except one seem to merely be citing that paper.  This book:  is not self-published, and has a long paragraph about it.  I think this material could be put somewhere on wikipedia, but doesn't deserve its own page.  If people would prefer, maybe it could go on the page of the originator of the term, if she is deemed notable (perhaps she is not), and if not, perhaps it belongs as a brief one-sentence mention on a page like dance therapy or something similar?  Cazort (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes it appears that the paper was written by Sandra Reeve, the originator of the term, so it is a primary source. As far as I can tell, she is not notable for anything unrelated to Eco-somatics, so if it is decided that Eco-somatics is not notable, then an article about Reeves would be inappropriate (unless someone finds some sources I am missing). Some basic information on a page like dance therapy sounds like a good solution though. -- D•g Talk to me/What I've done 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I considered merge targets, but found no really appropriate ones.  This seems to be one person greenwashing a dance therapy, and violates WP:NOTADVERTISING.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as a fringe topic based chiefly on primary sources. —Tim Pierce (talk) 17:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons listed above - could not find a single mainstream, legitimate source. Drake144 (talk) 00:26, 19 October 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.