Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IRECA 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 of the debate was delete.  Sango  123   02:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

IRECA method
Delete on the following grounds: This article on an "alternative medicine" technique provides no independent sources to establish verifiability or notability, and seems like more of an advert than anything else. Google gives the linked-to website, and the Wikipedia article itself, and that's it. Not even a page's worth of results. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, spam.--Peta 03:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to use the WP jargon for what I'm saying, but I think this just needs to be made into a redirect into Alternative Medicine, where there is already an entry for IRECA. I don't believe it needs to be its own article.  Tychocat 05:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, there no longer seems to be anything in that article on IRECA. Nor should there be, this method has next to no notability or verifiability to speak of. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 17:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per advertising, suggest no redirect too for that reason Ydam 08:25, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertising. J I P  | Talk 09:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete DOn;t redirect, as even the title is just advertising. Kevin 10:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - what Kevin said. Colon el Tom 11:06, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, advertising. --Ter e nce Ong 16:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Xyra  e  l  T 19:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not delete Try to search IRECA on Google in SPANISH. There is a lot of info there. The article should be rewriten to explain better what IRECA is and how is different from Reiki. Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for advertising but should still reflect reality and contemporary events as they are, not only from the point of view of english readers or people not interested in energy techniqes. There is significant interest in IRECA and this article should indeed be less biased and  more concise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoser (talk • contribs)
 * Comment There are 830 Google hits for IRECA, and less for IRECA method, many of which are pretty useless. There is an extreme lack of reputable nonprimary sources. It doesn't matter what langauge you search in, as Google automatically shows results from all languages unless you choose to specifically limit it to one language. I've not done that, so I'm seeing them all. Every result reads like an advert, and I'd hate to let another pass on the Wikipedia. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lack of Google hits plus complete lack of references or sources shows this to be a non-notable fringe movement, and the article is an advert. MCB 02:03, 3 June 2006 (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.