Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro Emotional Technique


 * 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. Consensus not to have an article. Mergers are suggested, but without agreement about where to. This deletion is without prejudice to restoration for merging purposes should editors later agree about in which article to cover such topics.  Sandstein  07:43, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Neuro Emotional Technique

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non specific method, apparently used primarily as part of chiropractic jargon. The isolated case studies used as references show very well why chiropractic is considered fringe. I have always strongly supported articles on notable fringe topics, but this is not notable.  DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as my searches found some links but nothing else convincing of better notability and improvements. SwisterTwister   talk  17:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  17:11, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Some published articles are included as references, but there is not much that meets WP:HEALTHRS. These cited articles are not from mainstream journals and only extend to a few case-studies, pilot studies and comparison of a score of athletes. So, not an extensive body of evidence and I don't think it passes WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But for me this raises the question, WP:HEALTHRS states that ideally references should come from "reputable medical journals" but chiropractic medicine is not going to be covered much there -- is it? And they do seem to have their own journals. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - there seems to be some notability in here. I would merge it into a parent article. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or Upmerge It's inappropriate to divide fringe ideas into articles of a smaller unit than mainstream sources talk about them. We need enough sources to write a balanced article, and that means covering them at a level that allows proper, balanced discussion. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Selective merge The passage that begins, "There are several schools of chiropractic adjustive techniques..." would seem to be the place for this. One concern though is that it's an application rather than an adjustive technique -- it's the same type of manipulation, or various types of adjustment -- but for a different desired effect? So maybe it would be mixing apples with oranges to merge it there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for including more details than just merge. AIR corn (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd reverted myself before, but there is enough content on the psychotherapeutic aspects that I think the Behavioural science delsort might as well be added, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing outside some fringe journals attests to this articles notability (even these look primary). If this is to be merged I would target Chiropractic treatment techniques. There are currently a whole lot of merge proposals there for similar articles. Even if those fail then this is probably still the best place to mention it as I feel it is not notable enough for the main article (all the other techniques mentioned there have their own articles). A merge of its name and a short description is all that is needed and is all that is probably salvageable (first two sentences of the second lede paragraph). AIR corn (talk) 07:15, 21 April 2016 (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.