Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symptom imperative


 * 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. --Rschen7754 (T C) 20:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Symptom imperative

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Another bit of spam of Dr. Sarno's uncollaborated claims (see Tension myositis syndrome) - Pacula 19:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'd want to see citations from peer-reviewed journals and NOT self-serving publications before accepting this -- could be dangerous to the credulous. Accounting4Taste 19:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete one doctor against the world is not notable. Just another doctor with a miracle cure. MarkBul 20:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. No results found in a library database search of medical journals. --User: (talk) 21:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OR. Don't see any reliable sources here B figura  (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's well cited and verifiable, a term used in psychosomatic medicine. Ralphyde 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That's not entirely true. The only reference provided is from John_E._Sarno. As such it has COI/POV issues, given that he's the 'inventor' (discoverer?) of the condition/disorder. We need independent sources to establish notability.  -- B figura  (talk) 23:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * delete this and the other one. I suggest a small mention in Sarno's own article of these theories.  There's some original research and random claims in this article too I think.Merkinsmum 00:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems POV-ish and lacking verifiable references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbisanz (talk • contribs) 03:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. An unnotable neologism from unnotable Sarno. Sorry, but this spamming has got to stop. He may even be right, but Wikipedia only features stuff that is notable, IOW history, not newly emerging stuff that hasn't gotten sufficient notice yet. When that happens in V & RS of an independent nature (not directly connected to Sarno), then it might be eligible for inclusion here. Wikipedia must not be used to establish notability. It's got to happen "out there." THEN we'll notice it and include it. Patience is the word. -- Fyslee/talk 04:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per above. • Lawrence Cohen  05:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or at least Redirect to an article on conditions arising in the psyche which then manifest in the physiological. No view one way or the other with regards to the Doctor concerned.  Marcus22 19:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable per WP:N.  No third party references WP:RS, appears to be phraseology of fringe science WP:FRINGE.  If anything, this can be merged with Sarno (if an article on him exists).   Shot info  04:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The list of wiki violations is exhaustive, and so far we have not heard anything useful in its defence. This whole Dr. Sarno extravarganca in Wikipedia is nonviable.JayEffage 23:25, 14 September 2007 (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.