Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sujok 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 delete. Sources do not demonstrate notability. We are not in the business of promoting pseudoscience. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Sujok Therapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks like the promotion of pseudoscience. There are zero pubmed indexed reviews https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=%22Su+jok+Therapy%22 Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I have deleted some of the worst of it. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * delete fails WP:FRINGEN. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * courtesy ping to, who accepted the draft via AFC. Primefac (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * it is written that most research so far was done in Russian language, some of the research was attached in PDF format, the fact that there is only one reference in PubMed, does not make is false or pseudoscience. . It is estimated that more than 1,000,000 people around the world practice Sujok every day, it should have Wikipedia value...


 * --Pashut2000 (talk) 04:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * facebook?? please read WP:MEDRS and WP:RS Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much . I was not aware of that, however the purpose of this article is not to discuss the question whether or not the Sujok therapy is effective, but to prepare a value that explains what is Sujok and who uses it and why...so the medical research part is deleted, but we can leave some basic information about this method. It is widely practiced that is why I cited facebook, that one can see how wide this method is discussed and practiced...81.218.167.249 (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * delete If this article were presented nothing but "complementary medicine" (which, imho, is a polite way of saying "pseudoscientific" or "placebo") and independent, reliable sources were available (Times Of India is about the only one I could find, and it's an interview with a proponent and hence not quite independent), I could envision an article about it. Being pseudoscience is, in and of itself, not a reason to delete. However, the method is presented as a viable therapy (if not to say a panacea), which would require MEDRS sources. Currently it lacks independent, reliable sourcing (let alone by MEDRS standards) and requires a complete rewrite to make it a viable article. WP:TNT applies. Kleuske (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not delete. It is used in many countries and the results are reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:960B:9CFC:0:0:27E3:80B1 (talk) 16:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)  — 2405:204:960B:9CFC:0:0:27E3:80B1 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment We have an impressive number of new accounts working on the article. Interested in were coordination is taking place and their relationship to the topic in question. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sujok therapy is a logical healing method in the field of alternative medicine. It is widely practiced in many countries. In India it is going to be included in the maharastra acupuncture bill and will be included in the council. It is recognised by saurastra university also.
 * On daily basis people are getting relief from this therapy.
 * The link below support this therapy.
 * http://m.timesofindia.com/life-style/health-fitness/health-news/Explore-the-benefits-of-Sujok-therapy/amp_articleshow/18146021.cms — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smileajay (talk • contribs) 17:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)  — Smileajay (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Please do not delete. I am Dr Paawan Wadhawan MBBS, MD (Internal Medicine),a certified Diabetologist fro Cleveland Clinic USA .I use Sujok therapy for all my patients. It is really effective in curing pain and lifestyle disorders like Diabetes. My website alone has more then 100 original interviews of patients who were benefitted by Sujok therapy. Please feel free to visit www.medisujok.com. In India Sujok is used by a large no of practitioners helping around masses in India. Sujok Therapy is recognized by Maharashtra Government and Odisha Government In India. Sujok is included as a subject in Maharashtra Nursing Council. Sujok was presented as a separate subject in National Conference of Integrated Healing in Sanchi University. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paawanwadhawan (talk • contribs) \
 * That is a published endorsement from Dr Anju Gupta, Sujok Therapist (who could also be User:Smileajay) and is in no way an independent reliable source. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your pleas here are not relevant. Wikipedia is not in the business of advertising alternative medicine. In fact, the topic area is under sanctions. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 22:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that the Cleveland Clinic's Find-A-Doctor page gives me nobody matching your name. I'm going to assume you're lying to us until further notice. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 06:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

I am Not lying. I am a Board Certified Consultant Physician in India. You can Check on MCI India IMR Register. . I am Certified from Cleveland Clinic USA does not mean that I practice in Cleveland Clinic in USA. My Certificate from Cleveland Clinic is attached in the reference below. I have published my articles in renowned international medical journals like BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, JOURNAL OF ASSOCIATION OF PHYSICIANS OF INDIA ,. Does it add a value to Sujok authenticity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paawanwadhawan (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because the legitimacy of the technique is secondary to the apparent promotion (Wikipedia REQUIRES neutrality and should not be used for medical advice) and horrendous sourcing (Wikipedia REQUIRES unassailable sourcing) that is the root cause of Doc James - who is one of our most respected editors with regard to medicine as a topic area - sending the article to AfD. By focusing on whether it's "legitimate" you're completely ignoring the issues the Wikipedia article has, my guess is deliberately. Whatever sources have been turned up thus far in this AfD have also been unsatisfactory. Honestly, the more you guys post here, the more it becomes apparent that you're missing the entire point of Wikipedia and are just using it for promotion and validation. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 14:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I've added changes in style of presentation and remark that there are no scientific evidence that prove the efficiency and efficacy of this method, this article is supposed to be descriptive and not to open a decate regarding complementary medicine...Pashut2000 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Move back to draft, delete or merge. Article is a vanispamcruftisement and certainly not notable. Over 50% of the sources are self-published. See Articles for deletion/Opang Jamir. Luis150902 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do not delet I m using sujok therapy for my patients everyday they get fastest results becoz of sujok only.this therapy is not only the therapy its a natural medicines to cure disease from roots n recycle natural systems of body — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.109.86.190 (talk) 20:37, 16 April 2017‎ (UTC) pretty sure this comment was supposed to be on the page not the ec. Primefac (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you're "using [it] for your patients everyday" is irrelevant as to whether the Wikipedia article should be kept. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide and should not be used to provide medical advice. I will also note that homeopathy, as a whole, is under discretionary sanctions, and it looks to me like the Sujok therapy falls under that umbrella. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 22:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete It appears that all the references point to works by a single author, other than refs with mentions of its use or non-use. The sentence of greatest significance for Wikipedia is "The International Sujok Association (ISA) is a world-wide non-profit organization whose aim is to spread Sujokall over the world". Independent reliable sources demonstrating WP:N are needed for there to be an article. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * keep - the article approach was changed, also there were added objective references in the russian language that were not created by the author, these are independent reliable resources (Wikipedia, see WP:RS.)  , also local media and newspapers do support that this method is practiced all over the world. We do not run the discussion about efficiency but present a method that exist and widely practiced.It is the public interest to know. All data shown in this article is Verifiable.


 * -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashut2000 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 April 2017 (UTC) — Pashut2000 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Those sources are still terrible, and it is unclear what the last one is. Jytdog (talk) 06:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We have policies that require people to disclose their connections to the subjects they write about. User:Pashut2000 were do you describe yours? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I added one more reference regarding the use of Sujok Therapy for the treatment of Migraine, this study was done in I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, and published in scientific magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashut2000 (talk • contribs) 05:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Where should I disclose my connection to the subject? here?Pashut2000 (talk) 07:14, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This page here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

keep - I think this debate shows how notable this issue is, I have made some revisions and added new resources from governmental bodiesPashut2000 (talk) 00:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC) You're only allowed one !vote.
 * Delete non-notable fringe therapy. If it was truly notable, it wouldn't require all this effort to promote it on Wikipedia. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for disclosing your COI on your talk page. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:NEXIST, ″...The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search. I think we have shown that there are reliable resources without any COI such as the Russian Federation Ministry of health. And last but not least, please, WP:5P4 - ″Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 5,387,270 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.″
 * I think this article stands in the standards of wikipedia General notability guidelines (WP:GNG), we have shown that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. It just resources from Russia (official government) and India (Indian times and Maharashtra Nursing council).

According to WP:IRS, ″Reliable sources on Wikipedia include peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas.″ '''Citation are made in this article from Universities, and peer reviewed scientific journals, the only ″problem″ is that they are in Russian, but that does not make them pseudo-scientific or false, especially due to the fact the mostly are written and approved by medical doctors and representatives of the scientific comity. Let us be careful not to be biased by prejudice.''' Pashut2000 (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Wikipedia has been accused of systemic bias, which is to say its general nature leads, without necessarily any conscious intention, to the propagation of various prejudices. Although many articles in newspapers have concentrated on minor factual errors in Wikipedia articles, there are also concerns about large-scale, presumably unintentional effects from the increasing influence and use of Wikipedia as a research tool at all levels. In an article in the Times Higher Education magazine (London) philosopher Martin Cohen describes Wikipedia as having "become a monopoly" with "all the prejudices and ignorance of its creators," which he calls a "youthful cab-driver's" perspective. Cohen concludes that "[t]o control the reference sources that people use is to control the way people comprehend the world. Wikipedia may have a benign, even trivial face, but underneath may lie a more sinister and subtle threat to freedom of thought." That freedom is undermined by what he sees as what matters on Wikipedia, "not your sources but the 'support of the community'."Pashut2000 (talk) 02:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What's that old lawyer's adage? "If the case is against you, pound on the facts. If the facts and case are both against you, pound on the table." None of us have personally attacked you, and the consensus seems to be your sources are still lacking, to which you do the equivalent of pointing behind us and shouting about a simian with three craniums. It's also worth noting that there's a reason for pseudoscience and homeopathy topics to come under greater scrutiny; both topic areas are under discretionary sanctions because of egregious behaviour, mainly by proponents, in those topic areas. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 03:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Keep"117.239.230.244 (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2017 (UTC) — 117.239.230.244 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * "Keep"Jugal Chahal (talk) 06:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC) — Jugal Chahal (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Bare !votes are not given much weight, if any, by whomever closes the AfD debate. You need to provide a coherent policy-based argument as well. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 14:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * why are the references not valid? Are Russian ministry of health and medical universities not a valid source in wikipedia?Pashut2000 (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ask the ones who are making that argument, not me. I have no dog in this fight (I don't edit in ArbCom-sanctioned topic areas). I'm only interested in trying to educate the new(ish) users that are only here because they were canvassed from off-wiki. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 19:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEDRS for refs required for health claims. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 22:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Since there are claims around treatment, reliable sources are needed. There are currently 47 references, but I can't see that any of these meet the standards of WP:MEDRS. 25 are by Park Jae Woo and several by the "International Sujok Association" so these aren't independent. As noted already WP:FRINGE applies. I don't see that notability has been established. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Clean up or delete I've stripped out the youtube and facebook pseudorefs. I've tagged most if not all the self-published sources, including one to a "journal" published by the promotional association. If there are wp:MEDRS available to replace them, by all means these should be inserted, but if none can be found the text should at least make it clear that claims are not endorsed in the voice of the encyclopedia. LeadSongDog come howl!  19:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I was not even able to read the full lead sections and by reading few sentences, one can find out that it needs to be deleted. One definitely has the right to have multiple number of hypotheses and that can mean that anything can be claimed as a therapy / medicine. But unless and until proven scientifically, it is not not a theory. Wikipedia is not a collection of hypotheses hence it should be deleted. As Doc James has clearly pointed out, there are no proper reviews, hence it needs to be deleted. Wikipedia is no place for original research as well, so if I have any hypothesis in my mind, the proper place to write about it is scientific journals and not WP. Thank you. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On a lighter note, it is not Sujok but a joke! :D -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sounds a bit peculiar not to say biased "I was not even able to read the full lead sections and by reading few sentences, one can find out that it needs to be deleted". But the notion that no review was written about this method was very helpful so I added one on the text. Please note that this is not a private theory but a method. The use of this method can be controversial and that is ok, it is not the scope of this article. The article present a method that is becoming more and more prevalent all over the world. I add here few references, I do not want to add them to the text since it seems to crowded anyway, more references than explanations...so I add some here:

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pashut2000 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 22 April 2017 (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.