Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrambler therapy (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. Opinions are divided. The point of contention is the number and quality of sources, which is a matter of editorial judgment. Merging to Peripheral neuropathy may be a compromise solution after further discussion, but there's no consensus for it here.  Sandstein  19:18, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Scrambler therapy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a medical product. no sources that satisfy MEDRS, so not NOTABLE Jytdog (talk) 18:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  18:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: It is not credible that all 12 referenced cites, and a listed 10 further cites do not satisfy satisfy MEDRS. Compare with Vacuum bell (medicine) which has no FDA, EU or Medicare approval and a lot fewer cites. Article was last up for deletion in 2008 at which time almost no independent studies had been done.--Penbat (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument at AfD. Please point out which refs you see as meeting MEDRS. Thanks for pointing out the other article; I will look at it. It may need nominating for deletion as well. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think ithe onus is on you, who appear to claim to be a MEDRS expert, to make the case that all 22 cites fail MEDRS not me to prove otherwise.--Penbat (talk) 19:12, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've looked at them, and yes all the sources seem to suck. The only one that gave me pause was Sparadeo et al. (which seemed to be given here with an illicit link). I couldn't find much out about this, but it doesn't seem much cited and doesn't appear to be on PUBMED or MEDLINE-indexed, which is a big WP:REDFLAG for an extraordinary healthcare claim, and on that basis alone not usable. I'm astonished you think any of these sources usable: have you read WP:MEDRS? Alexbrn (talk) 06:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Weak keep MERGE (per ). I edited the article to remove the poorly-sourced material (esp. that which failed WP:MEDRS) and find there's not a lot left. For the record, the version before my edits is here. I don't believe there is sufficient high-quality secondary coverage of this topic to establish notability or to allow a neutral, encyclopedic article to be written. (Add: an IP has added  which does look like a reasonable source; maybe the few relevant sentences it has are enough ... ? ) Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC); amended 08:17, 8 April 2015 (UTC) &amp; 14:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)


 * note, after the nomination, two MEDRS sources were added:
 * the Hershman source that was added here is MEDRS.  a good one.  scrambler is mentioned in it, in a "special commentary" section that starts out saying "A number of nonpharmacologic interventions have been investigated for their role in preventing or treating peripheral neuropathy. However, the paucity of RCT evidence prohibited inclusion of those studies in this systematic review."  They briefly talk about acu, then briefly talk about scrambler and make it clear that there is insufficient evidence to say much about it, and use some scare quotes when they do.
 * Rivera was added here.  Also a good MEDRS source; also a passing mention and saying only "we don't know yet".
 * Passing mention is not enough for NOTABILITY in my view.Jytdog (talk) 12:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - significant coverage in multiple independent sources. MEDRS is not a notability guideline. This article could be, and to some degree already has been, rewritten to remove health claims that would fall under MEDRS.Dialectric (talk) 04:41, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * it has a brief mention in two MEDRS sources, and other than that, it is trade rags. How does this meet NOTABILITY, in your eyes?   Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Peripheral neuropathy Peripheral neuropathy with redirect, there is not enough WP:MEDRS sourcing (yet) on this to support a whole article, but there's enough for a sentence or two in another article.  13:10, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Adjust my !vote to merge to Peripheral neuropathy but not necessarily #Treatment, as the sourcing shows this isn't an established "Treatment" yet but would support Research as suggested.  14:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I proposed this AfD but I support MERGE but to a research section there, not to the treatment section. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable topic, which has received recent attention in the last few years. A search of Pubmed reveals a sufficient number of independent peer-reviewed articles to establish WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * primary sources are not useful in WP, and per WP:MEDRS will not be used in the article - they are not reliable sources. There are only two secondary sources for the biomedical literature, and both give only passing mention. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, I've read WP:MEDRS. I personally think it is pathetic, reflecting a lack of understanding of science, but it is policy.  However, my argument was not based on WP:MEDRS, but rather WP:GNG.  More generally, all of the articles in the PubMed search are reliable sources from peer reviewed journals, so the article is notable WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * the ~10 sources you mention will not be used as sources in the article, as they are all WP:PRIMARY, and every content policy (WP:OR, WP:VERIFY and most importantly WP:NPOV) calls us to use secondary sources, as do both sourcing guidelines, RS and MEDRS.  Jytdog (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Delete Entirely dependent on primary sources not compliant with MEDRS. There is not enough reliably sourced material for merger into any other topic. Banks Irk (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep or merge - I think the issue here is similar (but not the same) as that at Articles for deletion/Vacuum bell (medicine) where Jytdog and I have been hashing some of these issues out. The distinction, of course, that that the bell is a product, while this is a methodology. The product can be notable, even as a notable failure or notable pseudo-medicine. A methodology more heavily relies on its medical claims for notability. For medical claims we need WP:MEDRS sources and that guideline specifically prohibits the use of medical research sources, referring to them as "primary sources" (but not in the same sense as WP:PRIMARY) and so preventing them from being considered for the purposes of notability. WP:PRIMARY and WP:MEDRS do not say the same thing about primary sources and I don't think WP:MEDRS should be used as a notability guideline; that was never its purpose.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 04:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I would add that I think some people are unfamiliar with the structure of scientific research papers. Introductions to these papers always contain "mini-reviews" of the relevant literature.  So, one can ignore the specific research performed in a given article and instead use the peer-reviewed review information in the introduction to develop an article. --I am One of Many (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it is true that PRIMARY sources do have mini-review sections in their intro and discussion sections. But a) those sections often tell a story that supports whatever hypothesis the experimental work was about - they are not independent; and b) we do sometimes use them, but with care, and only in the absence of secondary sources.  In this we have two secondary sources discuss this subject matter and provide the context for it (which is what we rely on independent secondary sources for, per NPOV).  Namely, there is no good evidence it works (only one small double-blinded RCT with an N of 14 that showed no effect) and made clear that it is worthy of only passing mention at this time. Jytdog (talk) 11:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So, if I understand you correctly, if a scientist reviews the relevant research in the introduction to a research article, that is primary research and POV, but if that same scientist writes an article and it is labeled a review on the same research, then it is a secondary source and not POV? I think a little reflection reveals that this is an inconsistency. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , that's not what said, from my reading of it.  To put it another way:  Basically, the "backgrounder" a researcher writes in support of a primary research article is incomplete or slanted to support the research.  It's often a bit of salesmanship to justify the funding for the research, that's what makes those backgrounders less than ideal.  This is covered at WP:MEDRS, check the part starting "Research papers that describe original experiments are primary sources...".  The motivation of someone writing one of those backgrounders is completely different from that of someone writing a literature review.   15:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That may be your view and 's view, but that is not what happens in scientific practice. These are peer-reviewed articles and that kind of bias is not tolerated.  Review articles are written by the same experts that do the research for exactly the same reasons they write research articles.  I understand that this is a view held by some on Wikipedia, but its not based on scientific practice.  It is just a point of view. --I am One of Many (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It's actually part of the consensus-supported Wikipedia guide, and it's supported by a systematic review. If you'd like the guideline change you should propose that at WT:MEDRS.   15:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I can gather (with no medical expertise), Scrambler (Calmare) therapy is delivered with a specific (from the article) "Calmare MC5-A device. It has been FDA-cleared 510(k)-cleared and European CE mark-certified." Perhaps that is an additional consideration, particularly in the merge consideration: this is a therapy and a device, and covering the two would seem easier going forward in a separate article than as a new section in peripheral neuropathy. (Since it has been mentioned here, and possibly directly relevant, I'm also curious as to how use of the vacuum bell, which is defined here as a product, differs from the use of the Calmare MC5-A device, in other words, is scrambler therapy more about the device and how it is used, or about a technique independent of the device?) --Tsavage (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, based on, , and  , which demonstrate sufficient notability. I suggest that editors stop edit-warring and gutting, at least while the article is under AfD, and that they civilly discuss matters on talk. Other eyes to ensure that the parties involved remain civil would be helpful. Softlavender (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , unfortunately these three links don't make a satisfactory argument for keep under WP:GNG. The three links are general keyword searches for "Scrambler therapy" at Google Scholar, PubMed, and Google. First, this sort of search strategy can (and in this case definitely does) produce a lot of overlap between the result sets, because both Google Scholar and Google web searches will repeat hits from PubMed, making it appear that there might be more sources than there really are.  If you review the results of each search carefully you can see this, in particular the Google Scholar result set is pretty much a wholesale duplication of what's in PubMed, and will also repeat mirrors of PubMed at commercial sites like sciencedirect and informahealthcare.  Second, once you have the aggregate result set with the duplicates removed, take care to filter out from the search results those entries that aren't relevant to establishing notability per WP:GNG.  In particular, exclude primary sources, press releases, and publications that aren't independent of the subject, such as papers published by the inventor and advertising.  If you do this, you can see there is actually very little sourcing that supports a separate article per WP:GNG, and by this I mean (quoting WP:42) "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic."  Not to say there's nothing in this case, but not enough to support a whole article--that's why I and others are supporting a merge.   12:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * There is demonstrably "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic", so it meets GNG. The 102 results in Google Scholar are not repeat iterations, they are all distinct -- reiterations are listed underneath each article/entry in a link called "All __ versions". Nor is "the Google Scholar result set ... pretty much a wholesale duplication of what's in PubMed", as there are only 11 results in PubMed. Your personal opinion that there is "not enough to support a whole article" is simply that -- a personal opinion. Softlavender (talk) 12:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * , sorry but your response is still coming across as a "WP:LOTSOFSOURCES" argument, which is one of the AFD arguments to avoid. If there are specific sources that demonstrate "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic" it'd be great if you'd identify the individual ones that do support.    12:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Softlavender that is a pretty sharp reply. If you look through the google scholar results, there are lots of duplicates there and non-independent ones. (for example - just one - the 'Pilot evaluation of Scrambler therapy for the treatment of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy" study is there in two different versions on the 2nd page). there are all kinds of problems with google scholar - it even indexes copies of WP articles on other sides.  (see here) Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The number of duplicates that appear in a search is not relevant to the notability. Anyone can count up the number of non-duplicates. The argument seems to be that peer-reviewed scientific articles on a topic in science cannot establish the topic's notability.  Instead, it takes something such as a newspaper article by a non-expert reporter in the New York Times to establish notability? --I am One of Many (talk) 15:33, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The answer to life, the universe, and everything - independent, reliable sources are what matters. in all WP, primary sources are generally to avoided and in health-related topics, primary sources are really to be avoided. If there were NY Times level sources, there would likely be secondary sources in the biomedical literature too (and probably would have been first) Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete  or Merge to Peripheral neuropathy . While there are clinics that claim to practice this therapy, without reliable sources even establishing notability is difficult. Despite searching relatively hard for MEDRS sources, all I've found are a couple articles in sponsored or non-peer reviewed medical literature. Mamyles (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it more, I'm not confident that merging this would be an appropriate step, since doing so would imply that this is a bona-fide treatment despite no MEDRS sourcing. Mamyles (talk) 21:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Inclusion does not equate to endorsement - we have articles on financial scams, computer viruses, etc. As long as there is independent RS coverage, the question of whether or not the treatment is legitimate is independent of the question of whether it is notable.Dialectric (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge to Peripheral neuropathy per . -  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, due to unfixable NPOV problems. This therapy has virtually no coverage in the reality-based medical press, and the claim that the devices are approved is disingenuous, as they are essentially TENS machines - Rife machines, an archetypal quack device, are marketed under precisely the same approval: the approval covers one set of claims and indications, but the practitioners use another entirely. Without substantial independent analytical coverage we cannot know if we are accidentally promoting quackery or, conversely, describing a legitimate therapy in a way that makes it look, albeit only to those familiar with the field, like quackery. So: it appears to be way too soon for this topic. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - With 11 studies in PUBMED and some 211 "unsimilar" results in Google, there seems to be sufficient source material for an article covering medical and non-medical aspects. There is direct consideration of the therapy/product in at least one credible review study (even one instance still equals "coverage" not "no coverage"), and it has been around for several years (e.g. studies published from early 2000s to present, Apr 2015). Also, primary sources and even company web sites (as a source about itself) can be used for straightforward and non-controversial (non-medical) information. Wikipedia typically encourages unhurried, collaborative development of articles provided there appears to be sufficient material. Not being able to verifiably prove whether a medical therapy or device is useless or not isn't a reason for deletion, is it? (I notice that the article has been systematically gutted of references, further reading and external links since this AfD nomination, which seems unhelpful.) --Tsavage (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 11 WP:PRIMRY sources in journals good enough to be indexed in pubmed; two (really one) secondary sources.  raw google search results are a classic move at AfD, and are never relevant.  it doesn't reach WP:NOTABLE at this point, TSavage. maybe eventually, when more research is done and gathered in further secondary sources. Jytdog (talk) 04:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Point is simple: enough sources for a basic article (who, what, where, when, why), enough medical sources to establish that it is recognized and not considered an absolute crackpot therapy/device, and there is indication the topic is not dead (years it's been around, a new study published this month). What more are we trying to prove here?! --Tsavage (talk) 06:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as non notable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable at this time, perhaps in the future it will be. Not enough to warrant redirect either. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2015 (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.