Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Placebo studies


 * 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 Placebo. Clear consensus that this topic is already covered by placebo, as nobody has made an argument as to why it would require a separate article. Going by redirect rather than delete or merge because some valid points about preserving the content in some form have been made, but also concerns that this is a WP:POVFORK and the content may thus not be suitable for wholesale copying/merging. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Placebo studies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:POVFORK of placebo written from the point of view that the placebo effect is a thing, when the main article establishes the opposite. Guy (Help!) 07:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge Placebo is a big topic as there are numerous books about it. It's not difficult to find sources which focus upon studies such as Experimental Placebo Studies or Setting the Agenda for Placebo Studies.  The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothign to emrge, this is already in placebo, it's just that one editor doesn't like the way it's presented. Classic POVFORK, in fact. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not so. For example, the page in question gives details of the early work of Louis Lasagna – a respectable physician at Yale and this information does not appear in the other page.  My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect/delete – Nothing in this article is specific to "placebo studies" over "placebo effect" except for the first sentence. I'm seeing no evidence that this Kaptchuk (who by the way owns "an herbal and acupuncture clinic") was a pioneer of the study of the placebo effect, their program wasn't founded until 2011. A few of the recent meta-studies could be merged into the main article. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Ted Kaptchuk has spent decades trying to establish that the placebo effect is a thing, becuse he admits that acupuncture is a placebo, and he's an acupuncturist. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep It's the field of research on placebos... --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment For a discussion about the POV that this article is supposedly a fork from, see Talk:Placebo. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It's not an actual POVFORK, as it was created in 2012. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect/Delete. Anything salvagable would make more sense in Placebo per WP:NOPAGE. Alexbrn (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2019 (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.