Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sensory integration therapy


 * 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Sensory integration therapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This may be a notable topic, but as the tags at the top - unaddressed since 2014 - indicate, this article has lots of verifiability and neutrality problems, and is in part written like an advertisement, down to the use of the term "Ayres Sensory Integration®" in parts. Until this is evaluated and totally rewritten by an expert, perhaps it is better covered more succinctly at Anna Jean Ayres.  Sandstein  15:11, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 02:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep It's bullsh*t, but it is notable bullsh*t. I have made a few edits to reflect that fact. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 12:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, keep an eye on the related articles Sensory Integration Dysfunction, Sensory processing disorder, Sensory Processing Disorder Foundation and Anna Jean Ayres. There's a lot of dubious scientific claims in all these articles. Famous dog (woof)(grrr) 12:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:01, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep The article needs a lot of work, but the subject itself seems notable. A quick google reveals it's treated as an established therapy by information for patients (webMD, NHS website), professional organizations; it's covered in journals and taught in university courses. Instead of deleting the article, maybe the right approach is to cut overly detailed and overly positive sections and start over from a reduced core.  Cyrej (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep: Well, it's frightful, somewhat promotional (I've cut some of the worst of it), dreadfully written, and (shh!) doesn't seem to work despite vigorous but largely unscientific attempts to demonstrate that it has any kind of benefit. It thus seems very close to WP:FRINGE and WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE, not to mention WP:ADV and WP:COI if we're into policy acronyms. However, this flaky stuff does exist out there in the world, including in numerous NHS trusts (local health bodies in the UK), which may have accepted it more or less uncritically. I think we should deal with it sceptically, citing reliable sources, as we do with topics like Astrology. The current article needs to be has been extensively rewritten cut down, so we have the choice of WP:TNT (delete, start over) or might as well keep ing it and reroofing the house from the inside . Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Covered in decent WP:MEDRS so passes WP:GNG - woo but notable woo. I've cut a load of crappy content. Alexbrn (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * good work. Have you looked at the other articles named by Famousdog above? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2018 (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.