Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pulse diagnosis


 * 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   keep. Despite claims to the contrary, this topic is covered extensively in reliable sources. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 09:56, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Pulse diagnosis

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An ayurveda fork of pulse which has managed to pick up more and more crud along the way, with no useful citations whatsoever. At best I think an ayurvedic subsection in the medical article might be justified, assuming it were properly cited. Mangoe (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep but edit out the dubious third and fourth paragraphs (the ones laden with synthtags). I don't know much about Ayurveda, but pulse diagnosis is certainly an important aspect of TCM; a quick trawl through gbooks will provide plenty of sources. As a concept, it's notable enough to have an article. Yunshui (talk) 07:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Most of this article needs to be cut, but to echo Tunshui, this is a huge part of TCM. I found some promising articles in the Journal of the History of Biology that might be used to repurpose this article to cover pulse diagnosis as a historical and TCM practice. eldamorie (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment I am sensitive to the need to retain decently sourced information on the pulse as it figures in Ayurveda and TCM. My problem is particularly with the article as titled: it is misleading and unnecessary, as most of main article is already devoted to diagnosis. I would prefer to expand the current fugitive references within pulse itself. Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps moving it to something like Pulse diagnosis in traditional Chinese medicine would help? Its use in Ayurveda - if significant enough to make an article on - could be similarly put in a disambiguated page. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There's so little material that I think it could all be incorporated in the parent article; however, a sufficient expansion could justify such a move. Mangoe (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I've read, TCM pulse diagnosis COULD have an article on it, not that it would be anything like this one. I'd be inclined to delete this one as a bad idea, but if it's considered more desirable to have a really awful, useless stub, then some redefinition of scope is necessary, because the actual subject of mainstream pulse diagnosis is completely and totally explained in Pulse. In short, the keeps are based on an article of a different scope. 86.182.20.197 (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 23:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - May as well make my feelings explicit: The subject of mainstream pulse diagnosis is covered under Pulse; any alt-med or historical version should be disambiguated anyway, and TCM pulse diagnosis - probably the only really notable alternate version which is worth having an article on, due to its complexity - is so badly explained here that there's nothing worth keeping for a future, correctly positioned article. Alternatively, Redirect to pulse, which has a great deal of information on mainstream pulse diagnosis. 86.176.217.241 (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC) (Note: I'm the same as the 86.182.20.197 above - dynamic IP)
 * Keep sure the article could be better, but as a topic it should exist. It is too big to be called a fringe theory and is quite mainstream in China. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep This is way too important a part of traditional Chinese medicine—1,400 results in Google Scholar alone. That surely exceeds WP:GNG. Stub it if we have to, but keep it, even if it's a one sentence stub. First Light (talk) 05:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep a shorter and more verifiable version as I have just made it. Per Yunshui, Graeme Bartlett. Open to a move to a better title as well, but this is not the venue to decide that. --John (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2011 (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.