Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychotherapeutic postural integration


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Psychotherapeutic postural integration

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are no review articles that cover the topic on pubmed and books that discuss it are nearly all copied and pasted from Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree with This is a highly promotional article filled with New Age hogwash such as:


 * "In the presence of a supportive therapist, the clients can release the weight of emotional charge which holds them down and often, like a keystone, links different webs of tension in the bodymind. The result can be a lightening and softening and greater sense of aliveness. To engage aliveness is a fundamental strength of PPI".


 * This kind of language tramples on the neutral point of view and is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


 * delete promotional article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Promotional, not notable and redundant. Compare to: Postural Integration, Rolfing, Vegetotherapy, Bodywork (alternative medicine), Body psychotherapy, Somatic Experiencing, Kinetic Awareness, and Sensorimotor psychotherapy. I can't tell them apart at least. PermStrump (talk) 08:21, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: no RS for notability. (Being promotional is irrelevant, if the subject was notable the correct action would be to keep.) Tigraan (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Retain: First of all it is not possible to understand why this discussion for deletion is based on the grounds that the method does not comply with MEDRS. It has nothing what-so-everto do with medicine, with medical treatment, medical healing nor is it Medicine-related. Therefore is very strange and not comprehensible why medical doctors should need to concern themselves with PPI, claiming it requires scientific validation according to the criteria of their medical profession.
 * Admittedly it has not been made clear that this psychotherapeutic method had been developed over here in Europe towards the end of the last century, in which future practitioners are trained and supervised over a long period of years before they become qualified and certified. Briefly, the method includes elements of psychotherapy, psychology, traumatology, psychosomatics and bodywork. But is in no way related to medicine, nor have any claims of that nature ever been made. Here in Europe the medical profession has long accepted that this and similar methods are complimentary in supporting individuals with ailments or short-comings not necessarily requiring primary medical assistance, such as helping to release an individual's potential, promoting positive change, lowering anxiety, alleviating depression, relieving insomnia, improving posture, increasing confidence, resolving and maturing emotional expression, attaining betterment in relationships, overcoming trauma of various kinds, and so on. The page is factual and not "self promotional".
 * Perhaps some of the present wording, as has been quoted above, could do with updating to a more appropriate language. Thank you for pointing this out. However in no way do the arguments made justify in any way the rather rushed attempt to erase a long standing page that erroneously is made to appear to infringe on the medical profession outside of Europe, which this page in no way does. The www.eabp.org website of the European Assocation for Bodypsychotherapy, who valided this method after a several years survey, is temporarily off line. Osioni (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that your core argument is that PPI is not medicine, hence MEDRS does not apply. I guess you would disagree with Necrothesp's inclusion of the AfD in "medicine-related discussions". One can argue forever of the exact meaning of "medicine" but the thing is that "medical content" according to MEDRS certainly includes side therapies like alternative medicine or this one. I would say anything that claims to use stimuli on the body to cure/alleviate negative states of said body is within the scope of "medicine" by the common understanding of the word (even if it takes place outside hospital clean rooms).
 * Now, even for medicine-related topic, MEDRS only applies to medical content but (1) that's 99% of the current article, and (2) WP:RS and WP:N still apply to the rest.
 * Oh, and long-standing article —> WP:LONGTIME, The page is factual and not "self promotional". —> The method supports them to become more aware in their bodies and empowering them to change their "bodymind"  (and other examples). Tigraan (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This method was approved over a decade ago by the European Association for Bodypsychotherapy (EABP) as having fulfilled all criteria and qualification requirements needed for scientific validification of bodypsychotherapy according to standards existing here in Europe where MEDRS are not called for in the case of non-medical side therapies. This has never been questioned by the medical profession in any country in Europe. The EABP is held in high esteem as an absolutely independent authority. Scroll down on their page to see the approval of Postural Integration Psychotherapy listed amongst others. This page here may need an "also called" name. The present name possibly originated from the IFCC institute in France, who first applied for institutional accreditation for the method. Osioni (talk) 20:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "The EABP is held in high esteem as an absolutely independent authority." - says who? Your first link does not do you any favours, frankly. Give independent, reliable secondary sources. Tigraan (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - This topic would merit an article, even if all the page does is detail how misguided the ideas are, if we had reliable, established medical sources covering this. Yet we do not. I agree with the arguments made by other users. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 28 March 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.