Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuromuscular dentistry


 * 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. the consensus after relisting is clear enough; I have no personal opinion  DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Neuromuscular dentistry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No MEDRS sources. Not a real subspecialty. Merge to TMD a possibility but TENS an uncommon treatment, needs due weight, i.e. very little. Lesion ( talk ) 17:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Possible OR by linking other organizations (e.g. AACFP) to the term when it doesn't sound like they use it.
 * Overall impression: almost entirely based on 2 sources= 2 dentists' personal websites. Self published, unreliable and biased information aiming to increase financial revenue by promotion of treatment modalities (without evidence base and uncommonly used) that they specialize in. Lesion  ( talk ) 17:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Commment Just based on the article itself I would say to delete it. It has blank references all over the place and the references that are there are more or less unreliable. However, neuromuscular dentistry in itself is a significant topic. Try doing a Google Scholar search and you will see many reliable sources on the subject. Based upon the actual topic, I would keep the article. I am not sure why the creator did not use these sources from scientific journals.&mdash; Σosthenes 12  Talk  17:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12
 * Google is not necessarily reliable source for medical content. If we did use only WP:MEDRS sources for this article, then there would be no evidence. I am happy for the article to remain, as long as it is described for what it is-- an advertising gimmick by some dentists rather than making all these ridiculous claims about well the treatments supposedly works. Pseudoscience. I've been working on the TMD page for some time now and I chewed through loads of sources and I am confident to say that TENS is only rarely used for TMD. There are much more commonly used treatments. Those sources I have come across that do mention TENS for TMD do not use the term "neuromuscular dentistry". My argument is that this page is entirely focused on TMD, however it does not present the topic with any degree of accuracy (see the extended list of supposed signs and symptoms), and neutrality with regards (i) how commonly this concept is actually used in routine management of TMD, and (ii) how effective it is at managing TMD. It's bullshit basically is what I'm trying to say, and we are presenting it here as accepted, mainstream medicine with a sound evidence base. This kind of page is written with COI as an advertisement only, you see it all the time. They want to piggyback on wikipedia's high profile in google search results. They link to their own appointment details for God's sake. And the best thing is they don't have to spend a dime for this great advertizing while it reaches far more potential customers than any other type of advertising could. The concept of "neuromuscular dentistry" could much better be presented with due weight withing the main TMD page. Lesion  ( talk ) 18:05, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Here's another: Biofeedback headband. Lesion  ( talk ) 18:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean now. I reread the article more carefully this time with your comments in view and I think I agree with you. My first thought was that the article was trying to explain what neuromuscular dentistry was as a general subject so I gave it the benefit of the doubt. But the focus is on a treatment not commonly used as you said. Delete it due to the promotional nature? &mdash; Σosthenes 12  Talk  21:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12
 * Apart from the 2 dentists' personal homepages, the other source is too old (see WP:MEDDATE), but guess what, it doesn't even contain the term "neuromuscular dentistry". This leaves this article with no reliable sources at all. If we delete all unsourced content (as we are supposed to), this effectively leaves nothing to merge. I think a redirect to TMD might be ok, or a delete as you suggest.
 * I ran a pubmed search with keywords "neuromuscular dentistry" and it yielded 3 results: . Only one conforms to MEDDATE (the 2008 one), and none are marked as reviews (so not sure if they are secondary sources). I can't access the full text and they don't have abstracts. This source  also might be useful, not sure if we can use it. Potentially this might be be a notable topic if some of those sources are MEDRS acceptable, but in that case the entire page will require a rewrite I suspect. It should be explaining what neuromuscular dentistry means, and then linking to the relevant pages. As it is ATM, it is basically an extension of the main TMD page which is "doing its own thing" with no heed to the bigger picture or any evidence.  Lesion  ( talk ) 22:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  22:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Lack of sources.  Blue Rasberry    (talk)   18:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Obscure concept, difficult to source verifiably. JFW &#124; T@lk  19:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems unlikely to be able to standalone in its own article; perhaps if someone digs up one of the 3 pubmed sources they can be used in another article. Also, please do not spam an article with citation needed tags. It makes it very difficult to read the article in which case I'm not going to comment! II  | (t - c) 02:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be argued that I have over-tagged this page in this instance. Lesion  ( talk ) 09:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Promotional; definitely fringe; probably quackery; poorly sourced. If someone wanted to volunteer to rewrite it, making its fringiness clear, detailing the controversy, laying out the almost total absence of useful evidence, I'd support that. But it would take some time and would need to make the status of this "philosophy" very clear to our readers. This can't be achieved by simply culling or tweaking the existing text. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Both TENS and occlusal adjustment covered with due weight, referenced and in a NPOV in main TMD article. None of those secondary sources used the term "neuromuscular dentistry". This is the only source that I can access to maybe say something about it and I don't think it is MEDRS, and also it doesn't actually define what the term means, it just mentions it. Of the 3 pubmed hits using this term  only one does not violate MEDDATE . So I guess a potential rewrite would be largely based on that paywalled source. I will request it on the Wikipedia resource requests page, and if it is any good I will add some content explaining what the term "neuromuscular dentistry" means on the TMD page.  Lesion  ( talk ) 09:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, the potentially usable source is published in a journal (looks like more of a magazine ) of questionable reliability, and the internet archive starts at 2010, so... I'm out of ideas about where to get a reliable source to define this term.  Lesion  ( talk ) 12:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - even if a fringe idea, it fails WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2013 (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.