Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natal hypnotherapy


 * 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   Redirect to Hypnotherapy in childbirth with possibility for merging in info there. Black Kite 10:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Natal hypnotherapy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This page is about an alternative midwifery technique that seems to have firm commercial roots. No scientific sources whatsoever, so it's questionable if any reliable sources can be found. These would also define notability, although notability for CAM-methods might be looked at differently by some. Basically, I feel this is unsourced quackery. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hypnosis is hypnosis. Useful content could be merged into hypnosis. JFW | T@lk  22:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per JFW RogueNinja talk  00:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, I found this news article, which will be useful, but a single independent source isn't enough to establish notability. This could be mentioned in a section in the article on hypnosis but this subject doesn't have enough reliable sources to be the subject as an independent article. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect and merge to Hypnotherapy in childbirth, with new sources and the removal of the advertising in the current article we can have a reasonable stub. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Re: 'unsourced quackery' - personal disbelief in hypnosis should not put this article up for deletion. There is a considerable body of medical research on the benefits of hypnosis in childbirth which I can put in if required: I point you to Alice A. Martin, PhDPaul G. Schauble, PhDSurekha H. Rai, PhDR. Whit Curry Jr, MD, 'The Effects of Hypnosis on the Labor Processes and Birth Outcomes of Pregnant Adolescents', http://www.jfponline.com/Pages.asp?AID=2223&UID=, Jenkins, M.W., & Pritchard, M.H. 'Hypnosis: Practical applications and theoretical considerations in normal labour'. (British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 100(3), 221-226, 1993) http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119312851/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 [edit - it's not liking that link for some reason but you can google it], Harmon, Hynan and Tyre. J Consult Clin Psychol 1990 Oct; 58(5): 525-30; Milwaukee. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2254498 ...and so on - there are plenty more!  Would having a research section including these links be welcomed?  --CaramelDigestives (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no personal disbelief or any personal reason to start this discussion; please do not take this discussion personally. My search for "natal hypnotherapy" retrieved no citations, but clearly there is a body of evidence related to hypnosis and childbirth (see for example ). Based on your arguments I therefore change my vote and suggest we rename the article (because "natal hypnotherapy" seems to be mainly a commercial term), remove any unsourced facts from unreliable sources and rewrite it with reliable scientific sources.
 * Keep and rename to hypnosis and childbirth Hypnotherapy in childbirth. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I apologise, did not mean to strike a personal tone. I was wondering why this page is different to the pages for the  mongan method, i.e. hypnobirthing, and the bradley method for natural childbirth, both of which are commercially available alternative midwifery techniques which don't seem to have been objected to - I tried to base the page on them.  Are they also in violation of Wikipedia codes, or have I missed the thing which makes them acceptable?--CaramelDigestives (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have the same objections against hypnobirthing as I have against natal hypnotherapy, and I suggest this article be merged into one article called Hypnotherapy in childbirth. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to hypnotherapy in childbirth: This is basically promotion based on a single book/method with zero independent, reliable third-party sources at present. This particular technique, if notable, could be covered in the more general article, but a standalone is unwarranted with the current level of sourcing. MastCell Talk 21:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge as per previous suggestions but with the exception that perhaps the merged article should be renamed Hypnotherapy in pregnancy and childbirth. Many of the discussed methods do not solely consist of using hypnosis for the birthing process but also throughout the pregnancy (with the aim of preparation, of controlling fears and preventing various ailments).  An expert is probably needed for this topic, but getting all the methods into one article will be a good start. Sassf (talk) 22:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge Agree that merging into a masterpage of hypnotherapy in pregnancy and childbirth is the way forward. --CaramelDigestives (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not very familiar with this process - discussion seems to have died off, it's been a week, and the consensus is merge - can I go ahead and merge the articles mongan method, natal hypnotherapy, and hypnosis in childbirth, rewriting where appropriate, into a master piece entitled hypnotherapy in pregnancy and childbirth? --CaramelDigestives (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An admin is supposed to close the discussion and decide the result. Then there are various other little tasks they do to finish the whole thing off, including enacting the decision.  Hang on a little while, I'm sure it will get sorted, there's probably just a backlog. See Deletion process - you shouldn't close the discussion and decide a result yourself as I'm afraid that is seen as a conflict of interest.  Sassf (talk) 13:55, 22 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.