Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gokhale Method


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 12:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Gokhale Method

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable topic; article is promotional Alexbrn talk 05:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Strong keep sources are self-pub and very much an advert, but has far too many hits on Google. Mr. Guye (talk) 09:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS count for nothing unless they reveal significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. I'm not seeing it. This is an altmed offering that appears to have zero mentions on PUBMED. Alexbrn talk 09:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Please see the substantial revisions of the article. In terms of notability: I have revised the article so that the secondary sources which were presented only in the "Additional Reading" section of the article previously are now the primary source of information in the article. The reliance on these sources for the article should demonstrate notability under "significant coverage". You will also find that these are reliable sources which are independent of the subject. The article has also been revised to include the names of notable patients of the Gokhale Method. In terms of being promotional: I have removed all explicit references to the Gokhale Method's creator's website, and I have only referenced her speeches/presentations where absolutely necessary. The vast majority of the information in the article now comes from secondary sources, and these sources should be found to be reliable and independent of the subject. Finally, the information is presented in a neutral tone. Additionally, I removed the category "rehabilitative medicine" since no medical studies have been completed on the method yet. See the article's "effectiveness" section. Please see the article's talk page for more specifics. Dandem1 (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Dandem1 put a lot of work into the rewrite, but the coverage from independent sources is just not there. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. It looks like Esther Gokhale may be notable, where we could include a short treatment of her methodology. Gokhale Method could then be redirected to her article. --Ronz (talk) 02:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I think this runs afoul of WP:NFRINGE because it only affords pas sing mention in independent sources. jps (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete:: Insufficient coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. Particularly telling is that there is no mention of this on Pubmed. Fails all notability guidelines. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep While there are only about a half-dozen sources here, the ones that do exist are solid, including New York Times and ABC News. If they are talking about this method, I suspect that a more thorough search would produce more sources. While Ms. Gokhale is quite new on the scene of postural/movement education compared to some of the classic characters (all now deceased, Alexander, Feldenkrais, and Rolf), she may be among the most significant contemporary teachers. --Karinpower (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what "solid" means, but I agree the NYT ref is by far the best. It also doesn't mention the method by name, so I question how it demonstrates notability of the method. --Ronz (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your comment is a bit misleading. The entire article is about the woman and her work. Calling her work "The Gokhale Method" is just a shorthand and I don't believe those particular words need to be written to say that the article is about her teaching method. Perhaps this is why you commented that she might be a notable person, even if her method isn't notable enough (and actually that result would be fine with me - people looking on WP for info could still find it that way). On the Con side for this article is the fact that her book is titled "8 Steps to a Pain-free Back." This title does show that she is claiming medical benefit, putting her work in the MEDRS category rather than a movement discipline which I think is actually more suited to what she is teaching. I did read her book, and some of it is good stuff (while I disagreed with some of her ideas). The majority of the text of her book is about how to move correctly, not about medical issues, FYI. Not that that matters at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karinpower (talk • contribs) 01:58, 19 September 2014 (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.