Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NAET (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 per near-unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh  00:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

NAET
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't think that there are enough secondary sources to make this particular technique notable. What we have are a number of primary sources from fringe advocates in minor journals and a mention on a debunking website. I tried to find sources that indicated this technique was widely used, but all I found was promotional websites and no secondary sources that established any sort of notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you read this article recently, SA? It's been cleaned up and re-sourced substantially in the last few months.
 * Weak support - Actually the bulk of the article currently is made up a self-published debunker and research not specifically about the topic at hand. There is some discussion from a reliable source (Australian Society of Clinical Immunology and Allergy), but it may not be enough to warrant an article. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved Stephen Barret down below the sources from medical journals which are nearly as harsh in their dismissal.
 * Weak Keep Between Current Allergy & Clinical Immunology and Current Opinion in Allergy and Clinical Immunology, we probably have enough reliable sources to have a brief article on the subject, though certainly not a long one. It would be worthwhile upmerging if there was somewhere it could go. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 19:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * question do we have any sources saying anyone is actually using it, or is the article entirly devoted to saying why it doesn't work? Not everything that is disproven is notable. DGG (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough reliable sources independent of the subject matter and each other exist to convince me that this is a worthwhile article for our project. If nothing else, someone who may be considering this treatment can use this article as a jumping off point. DickClarkMises (talk) 02:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This technique is being used and is controversial enough to warrant attention here. We already have enough sources to justify keeping it, and it should be possible to strengthen the article with even more sources. -- Fyslee / talk 06:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Minimal academic sourcing, but the ASCIA refs knock it over the notability bar by providing just enough out-of-universe description for a neutral article. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in its current form. The fact that this has been introduced as a "discovery" and roundly debunked by the medical community is worthwhile information for the encyclopedia.  This has the incidental happy consequence of reducing the motivation to produce an 'uncritical' article on NAET. Protonk (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is a standard method. The ASCIA article referred to a proving notability for this says: "Allergy elimination techniques (also known as advanced allergy elimination and Nambudripad's allergy elimination in some countries)." So in the present form it would appear to be an advertisement for one practitioner. If kept, move to Allergy elimination techniques, and rewrite to de-emphasise the name.DGG (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2008 (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.