Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Keeping for now. Feel free to discuss merges on the talk page per WP:MERGE. Open minded to renomination for deletion with more clear rationale. Please WP:ASG with my decision. Thanks everyone. SarahStierch (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine)
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The clinical trials and acceptence of Novocures electromagnetic "tumor treatment field" invalidated the majority to the article here and serveral reference links. Article fails to meet WPV and WPRS in light of the new advances in medicine 1zeroate (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 December 15.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 22:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment, this article is an overlap of Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy which is also subject to an AFD debate right now. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , I agree there's a content overlap, would you support a merge from this article into PEMF? (See my argument below.)  02:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Awesome bot. Also I would report that I saw no yellow box to look for and now I see how I was supposed to do step 3.. awesome. Good bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


 * DELETE As stated the claims that all electromedical devices are scientifically proven to be inneffective are now completely invalidated. Since this artile is not about herbs and the modern advancments in medicine alter our understanding of the past... this whole article is now irrelevent due to innaccuracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 00:46, 16 December 2013‎
 * Note this !vote was made by the originator of this AFD and should not be double-"counted".  02:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

That was unnsessesary, the people doing the counting are intellegent enough to see that.

No bueno.lets raise our standards together and rise above the mean.


 * -Since you placed the AfD, your opinion has been noted, duplicating it is not necessary.-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  01:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The problems you raise can be remedied by editing the page. That claim is made in one sentence in the lead, removing that sentence, and explaining the new evidence would fix the problem, see WP:ATD. 109.78.147.170 (talk) 01:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem is more than one sentence. The problem is the majority of the article. Many of the refferences are invalidated by a medically acceptable cancer treating frequency device.  If it was just one sentence this Nomination would of never happend. But multiple sentences, and reffrences and perspective loyal editors kinda make it a bigger  clustermuck to mess with.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 01:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm not sure thar I understand the deletion rationale, but the fact that electric fields have been used successfully to treat disease does not invalidate the fact that there have been pseudoscientific uses of electomagnetism in this context, and that these uses have garnered significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, per WP:GNG. Claiming that would be like saying that the successful use of digitalis nullifies the pseudoscientific use of herbal medicine. 109.78.147.170 (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

user 109.78.147.170 ..... you only exist for two posts. Two contributions. That is it. Both here. Are you real or a sock? Not to be rude but it just looks fishey. Can you tell us what else you have edited recently or why this page was were you decided to make your editing debute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 05:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of dynamic IPs? I have several recent contributions under different IP addresses, for example, . see my reply below. 109.77.102.12 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have heard of Dynamic IPs and VPNs Perhaps you could give some credit to you being a regular and not a sock puppet account established only to sway the outcome here. I mean no disrespect by the accuasation but I find it fishy that you mainly exist here. And have no user page Even as anon I kept user pages. It makes reaching out easier from time to time. All the same I beileve tht if you can not establish yourself then you should not be counted in my opinion.
 * I have provided evidence above that I have edited before this AfD. Either put your money where your mouth is and take it to WP:SPI or withdraw the accusations. Further accusations will be reported as persistent incivility to a noticeboard. 109.76.33.133 (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Well my apoligies. I am not gonna even attempt to do much about an anon with a dynamic IP. Their is not much anyone can do. The ability of the rotating IP truly makes you anonymous. I was just hoping to have a means to verify you. I can not tell if you are a secondary account or an individual. You don't care about barn stars or accolades but seem to know the wiki process inside and out. So your intimate knowledge suggests massive amounts of experience. I stand by my beliefe that if you can not or will not prove your individualaity then you should not have a say in the sway of things. But this is not my call. It is a wiki thing. And again I mean no disrespect. I am not trying to be uncivil. I just want some reassurence that your are what you say you are. No offense intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 19:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the history of the editor, the analogy of digitalis is not far from wrong. Electromagentic therapy has a pseudoscientific history that Wikipedia should cover. Recent developmenst suggest possible aplications but, far from what you suggest, are not full, mainstream acceptance of efficacy NOR do they invalidate the concerns expressed in the past or contemporarily with these results. We need a balanced approach.-- Cooper  42 (Talk)(Contr) 23:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I absolutly oppose such underhanded tactics of information control. The PEFT article can nominate itself for deletion if editors feel it is warrented. Tagging it to merge with another article already nominated for deletion is unscrupulous. The PEFT article has already been undergoing LOTS of blanking in the last few days and this oppritunity to finish it off... It makes unwilling accomplises to uninvited mechenations. Each article should remain seperate and dealt with seperate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 03:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - article needs expansion, but appears to be valid-- &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;  &#9743;(talk)  00:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge into Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy (PEMF). (There are currently merge tags on the articles but they point--in my opinion--in the wrong direction.)  There appears to be a complete topic overlap between these two articles, but it's the PEMF title that meets WP:TITLE critera and not the title this article has.  The PEMF article is better-developed too.    02:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge as suggested in some fashion.  The two articles are too similar.  jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 05:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The articles do not look the same I have looked at them both and while this one has become a bit more stripped than the other that is all they have in common. A LACK OF CONTENT FROM OVER ZEALOUS DELETERS ... Me I thought about it. Tried editing things by the sentence and subject... Tried PROD... I'd of listen to talk and feed back but their was none. Just revert and cold shoulder I'm paying for my edits it right now as the editor I snubed by editing this article is now putting the  novocure article on the chopping block. Over citations. yeah right. I mean we all know he didn't have to. but it is what it is.

SIGH.... happy place happy place happy place. pfft trying to find it.

USER 109!!!!! Attention everyone ATTENION everyone I suspect user 109 up above to be a bogus account. Forgive my accusation if it is out of place. I do not know how to do everything. But that particular uses can quote wiki of hand and onl existed to add votes here.

I'd like to have that vote disqualified if the user is unwilling or unable to validate him or her self. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 06:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all assume good faith. This is not the venue to be making such accusations, If you think you have evidence against me, go to WP:SPI, where I will defend myself to the fullest, otherwise withdraw your remark. In the words of John Major, put up or shut up. 109.77.102.12 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I also think it is less than politie to tell me to shut up. just FYI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 19:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

IF the merger were asked before hand I might of thought about deletion more before acting.... and if a page has a delete marker on it I darn sure would not try to merge with it. I had thoughts and feelings and opinons originally but the ethics of being morally correct compell me. It is never right to merge an article with one up for deletion. Thats just trying to extend your trouble to others. ...no bueno — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 07:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge - It was me who suggested the merge, I did so to bring to the attention of other editors the degree of similarity between these two articles. The article about PEMT and this article are virtually the same topic. We should consider that the correct thing to do in both cases might be to delete both since the sourcing for both articles appears to be borderline garbage. If we are to keep one then this article has the more appropriate title (because it's more general). I do not mean to suggest that this article is any more valid than the other, in my opinion both are highly suspect fringe topics. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Keep And then Merge both Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy AND Tumor Treating Fields into this article. Article should then provide a full account of the pseudo-scientific history of the therapy and give proper, balanced coverage to recent developments. Here note that there is bad WP:FRINGE on the PEMFT article and that efficacy of TTF / Novocure's device is under debate and scrutiny and far, far from mainstream medicine.-- Cooper  42 (Talk)(Contr) 23:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:55, 23 December 2013 (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.