Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emotional Freedom Techniques


 * 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. W.marsh 18:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Emotional Freedom Techniques

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable fringe theory per WP:FRINGE ("Any non-mainstream theories should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major mainstream publication or by another important mainstream group or individual."). One (1) hit on PubMed for "emotional freedom techniques". References to "research" in the article almost all lead to the same commerical site - other than the one PubMed article, cannot find any peer-reviewed research on this theory. Without a peer-reviewed research base or other independent and reliable sources, the article can't progress beyond its current promotional/advertising state, and topic is non-notable per WP:FRINGE. MastCell 19:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the reasoning of the author, unless more decent sources can be found. J Milburn 19:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep (I seem to remember this article has been voted on before) The policy above is poorly worded because taken literally it suggests you need several references to one mainstream publication which does not make sense. The way I read it, one respectable peer reviewed reference is enough, and EFT has at least one. Man with two legs 10:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I interpreted referenced extensively as >1 peer-reviewed article. One PubMed hit doesn't make something notable; it's impossible to build a solid, NPOV article on a scientific topic based on 1 small peer-reviewed article and a bunch of promotional websites. MastCell 17:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * 1. Why impossible? There is no logic there.  Especially since even ONE peer reviewed article carries a lot of weight.
 * 2. The article is not simply a list of promotional web sites, although a link to the man who developed it is promotional in the same way that a link to Microsoft is to a promotional site. As it happens, much editing has been done by people hostile to EFT
 * 3. If EFT were not notable, then there would not be so many people actively using it (which they do, incidentally, because it works even if we do not know why). There are much sillier things on Wikipedia.
 * (How do I know it works? Because I used it to cure someone of fear of spiders in a few minutes.)
 * Man with two legs 11:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain for the moment. This article is too long and promotionally detailed. Perhaps cut it in half and expand reference sources. I do not think an article on this subject has to be "all scientific" but rather descriptive if the subject is notable and popular. I am unfamiliar with EFT except for minor exposure from working on the Mercola article. This sounds somewhat different - are there substantially different EFT versions or is Mercola's newsletter a more circumspect summary? Also I would expect an attempt to address any claims/connection on "psychoneuroimmunology", pro and con.--I&#39;clast 15:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is one peer reviewed study in a major academic journal, (showing that EFT produced significant reductions in phobias to small animals): Wells, S., Polglase, K., Andrews, H., Carrington, P., & Baker, A.H. (2003). “Evaluation of a Meridian-Based Intervention, Emotional Freedom Techniques (EFT), for Reducing Specific Phobias of Small Animals”. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 59 (9). 943-966. The implication is that EFT has been considered serious enough for academic researchers to be the subject of at least one well designed study.
 * In the professional literature about psychotherapeutic methods, EFT is mentioned as one of several emerging techniques. And yes, these references should be here in the WP article but their absence does not mean that the article should be deleted.
 * And by the way, EFT does not purport to be a science. It is a newly developed technique that shows workable empirical results when used in practice. Absence of rigourous large scale studies proving the effects of a method is not enough to delete an article describing an emerging practice based method.
 * To claim that something is "fringe" when one does not understand it or have knowledge about the literature could be construed as – well – arrogant. MaxPont 22:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't like the title of WP:FRINGE (it's pejorative), but it applies here. The "professional literature about psychotherapeutic methods" is generally indexed on PubMed, yet there's nothing except the one small study from 4 years ago. The rest of the refs are self-published by people who sell EFT books and DVD's. Again, not enough to establish notability or build a good article, WP:ILIKEIT arguments notwithstanding. MastCell 22:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Pubmed is only a database covering journal articles with formal empirical studies. Outside Pubmed there exist a large literature where therapists develop concepts and methods, discuss the field and similar matters. These books are written by professionals for other professionals in the field and not for the wider audience. That’s where you can find references to EFT (which should be used in this article). I can agree that the article needs more references and a more NPOV. (And by the way, disliking something is not a valid argument in a deletion debate either WP:IDONTLIKEIT). MaxPont 09:55, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: MC, I have suggested an editorial approach, see the article and Talk. It is pretty rough writing but it is meant as a starting point for more encyclopedic coverage.  I think that AfD is permature without a good faith attempt to try to add notable coverage from outside the mainstream medical journals.--I&#39;clast 06:09, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. The subject of the article is notable for its popularity among psychotherapists and the general public even if it is not notable as a topic of scientific research. I agree that the article is in pretty bad shape though.  I think the best route to take is to trim the article substantially, and find sources from the popular press to establish its notability.  Also, Emotional Freedom Techniques is a derivation of, and quite similar to, Thought Field Therapy. Maybe we can look to that article for ideas as to how to improve the Emotional Freedom Techniques article. WatchAndObserve 03:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate examples of the notability from other sources, it would aid the AfD nicely.--I&#39;clast 08:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, here are some from the Thought Field Therapy article:
 * Assessment of the Emotional Freedom Technique (Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice)
 * Can We Really Tap Our Problems Away? A Critical Analysis of Thought Field Therapy (Skeptical Inquirer)
 * Unorthodox Therapy in New Orleans Raises Concern (NPR)
 * WatchAndObserve 15:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the legwork... those are all good sources. All 3 range from moderately to strongly critical of TFT/EFT, so I suppose if the verdict is keep, the article should be rewritten to reflect that. MastCell 17:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 'keep, remove detailed claims, edit generally, & clarify that the originator has no formal qualifications. Thee is also no information either in this article on the one on Craig about the background of his mentor, Dr. Callahan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC).
 * This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep per this search Addhoc 15:23, 5 February 2007 (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.