Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rolfing


 * 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. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rolfing

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Uses one promotional website as a source. The scientific articles mentioned in one section appear to be taken from this page of said site, and that they have not been read by the author can be seen by the fact that it simply says that Scientific research has investigated it - not any actual results. This is 100% pure promotion. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Having added the cites in that list of research to another WP article myself some 18 months ago I find Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday reasoning highly suspect. This nomination looks like bias to me. SmithBlue (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete unless we can have some WP:RS and balnce inserted in this article. Today it fails at multiple levels: WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:N. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 06:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm going to ask a masseuse friend on this before I say anything. That it's promotional is a good reason to clean it up, but not to delete - and what I see is that it can probably be cleaned up. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 05:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It IS a reason to delete, if the only source used to write it is not at all reliable. I am not here to argue that there could not be an article on the subject - simply that this article breaks every single criterion of writing an article. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 05:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Real, important and sourcable. 2 million ghits, which does not prove notability but is sort of indicative.  819 Books about it in GBooks alone./ . The article itself has the necessary scientific articles for notability--that the refs were obtained from the web page doesnt make them any the less real. Whether or not it actually has any merit is besides the point. A nom should check for sources--at least as far as G/GS/GB. It would be just as easy to add a few of the books as to nom for deletion, and that would be a positive benefit to Wikipedia, not a waste of everyone's time. DGG (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree that it's a little weak right now, but there do seem to be some reliable sources out there: these Science articles, for example, and maybe also this online news site. I can't seem to access the Science articles right now, but I'll try later — the summaries make them look pretty relevant, anyway. FCSundae ∨  ☃   (talk) 07:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * keepRolfing has been investigated scientifically - its an object of scientific study. And some editors here want to delete it? The article needs work - yes - but to delete it seems highly biased. Articles in Journal of Clinical Psychology, The Journal of American Physical Therapy Assn, Journal of Orthopaedic & Sports Physical Therapy, and Developmental Medicine And Child Neurology. Shoemakers Holiday comment "Some sort of fringey massage, ..."[] shows a lack of understanding, and worse, a lack of curiosity. Rather than slapping templates on new things, Shoemaker would do us all service by not using AfD for some misguided crusade. (Templates have also been mis-applied to Medical intuitive and Feldenkrais Method. Please consider Shoemakers Holiday's criteria when they too come up for consideration here. SmithBlue (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I question the use of AfD for this article (and others that have been recently tagged by Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday). WP:DELETE/Alternatives to deletion/Editing (WP:ATD} states, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." Obviously Rolfing can be improved with regular editing. I am open to editing against policy, (WP:IAR), but Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday needs to explain why this case is special, why we shouldn't follow policy in this instance. Here also might be a suitable space for Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday to explain why Feldenkrais method and Medical intuitive were also tagged for deletion against policy (WP:ATD). SmithBlue (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep as established and verifiable, but might be merged with the Structual Integration article. WillOakland (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep is an established form of physical therapy, I have found several articles on it through Google News (such as, their are books mentioning it and not to mention millions of google hits, definitely meets notability criteria. Atyndall93  |  talk  11:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Real topic, extremely well known. Even if you eliminated the "Rolfing Institute"-style links and were left with only the one section with all the professional journal cited, that alone is enough to establish notability. 23skidoo (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. 819 Google Books hits, including several dozen books entirely about Rolfing.  How is that not notable?  I'd say that any topic that has had that many books written about it is WP:Notable. Klausness (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep You cannot be serious per John McEnroe Colonel Warden (talk) 14:20, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The fact google finds a trillion hits does not establish there are WP:RS. They could be merely from promotional sites, see mucoid plaque for comparison. Also, the fact we can find books that cover the subject does not mean those books comply with WP:RS. Finally, if we search the medical literature through PubMed we find scant, if any discussion of this "therapy." Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * when I look at that PubMed search I find 4002 scientific articles about it from peer-reviewed journals the NIH thinks respectable enough to include--and which in fact include most of the major journals in a number of medical fields. What they may say about the worth of therapy is of course another matter, but that does not affect the notability. DGG (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The example of mucoid plaque actually shows why Rolfing is notable. Mucoid plaque is notable because it is widely discussed in alternative medicine.  If the notion has no scientific validity, then that should be discussed in the article (as it is with mucoid plaque).  Similarly, Rolfing is notable because it's a well-known form of massage (or tissue manipulation, if you prefer), and that's pretty well established by the existence of dozens of books.  If there are questions about the scientific validity of the technique, then those can be raised in the article. Klausness (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The PubMed search above returns 8604 hits. This is a reason to retain, not delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep We are not judging here whether it is a valid and effective method for therapy. All we should be doing is noting the many reliable sources which have substantial coverage of it as a notable organization or process. Google News Archive shows 2,440 articles in which the term appears. Out of this total, there are certainly huindreds which meet any reasonable definition of "substantial coverage in reliable and independent sources," including the Los Angeles Times (1990) and (1991) , the Philadelphia Inquirer (1993) ,and other mainstream newspapers  ,  ,  ,  , . There is no requirement that they be included presently in the article. Clean up if it has a promotional tone, but certainly do not delete. Edison (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Well-known technique, meets WP:Notability requirements. That said, I personally think it's pseudoscience, but it is nonetheless notable. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a reasonably well-known technique, even if it is fringy. The article stinks, but that's a different problem. Mangoe (talk) 19:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I know it's not a valid AfD argument, but if it's a massage technique I have heard of, it's just got to be notable. 1719 books on Amazon with rolfing in the title; first couple of dozen all seem to be about this technique.--Fabrictramp (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I have to say - it may be crap, but it's notable crap. I remember it being a punchline in a newspaper comic strip from 1982/1983, for instance. I was 6 or 7, and I remembered that one because it made no sense to me. "...has he been ralfed?" "That's 'rolfed', sir. And yes, he has!" DS (talk) 05:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Checked with the masseuse friend, what she states is pretty much on par with what the article says.  May be somewhat spam flavored, but it's on par with what she says.  Clean it up. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 00:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep This article greatly needs expanding, but incompleteness is not a reason for deletion. Rolfing is a well-known and well-recognized form of massage. Eauhomme (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete  unless one of you folks who say there are so many verifiable sources actually add some. While Rolfing is very much real, not a neologism or a hoax - that doesn't matter at all; we're not here to come to a consensus about the subject material, but rather about the article, and it fails WP:N as it stands right now. If there are reliable sources out there....why not add some? Without that, deletion is the only answer. Merenta (talk) 19:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. WP:N requires that reliable sources exist, not that they be explicitly cited in the article.  The sources clearly exist, and they should be added to the article to improve it, but such improvement is not a prerequisite for keeping the article. Klausness (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep You're right, and my recommendation is changed accordingly. Merenta (talk) 12:00, 18 May 2008 (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.