Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Horstmann Technique


 * 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. There is no prejudice against the creation of a user space draft. I can userfy upon request. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The Horstmann Technique

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable WP:FRINGE therapy: Google shows only 3000 hits for "horstmann technique" and 600 for "horstmann system", and almost all of them advertising. Three offline sources are cited: a vegan advocacy organization's magazine, a defunct New Age magazine, and the inventor's self-published book - none of them being close to reliable sources, especially for medical claims. The article used to contain a bunch of pseudoscientific claims of how the technique supposedly works; after user:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV there's literally nothing left that describes the technique itself. Kolbasz (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I am not so well traveled in Wikipedia, so I do not know if this is the correct way to comment on the suggestion of deleting the article about Horstmann Technique. It is my first contribution and is probably flawed. The knowledge of the technique is not well spread despite it having been around for a while. I understand that the topic might not be to everyone's liking, but I thought that an article in Wikipedia needn't be liked by all as long as it is as informative as it can be. Is not agreeing with the contents reason for deletion? Not all topics/articles have a huge amount of sources, but to me it would sound awkward as having that as a reason for deletion. How else would information be able to begin spreading? There are numerous articles in Wikipedia about what could be termed "Alternative medicine", and of course each reader is allowed his or her opinion about the validity. But regardless, there is at least an open debate about the concept. And that debate seems allowed and accepted in Wikipedia community. I do not see the Horstmann Technique any different from other topics that are allowed in and are subject to debate. I would prefer to having the debate compared to having it crushed. The latter would seem to me to work against the openness and expansion of Wikipedia in coverage. Matopotato (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi again, I did not receive any notification that the original article was changed, despite being the author. Now I can see that a large portion was deleted. Although this part had sources, that I tried to duly refer to. I understand that you probably do not agree with me on the contents, but if I do not agree with the edits, is there some kind of poll to decide what is acceptable or not? It seems to be more a case of opinion that is the driver to remove the article than lack of sources. I could dig into Wikipedia for less quoted articles if you need help finding such? Thanks, Matopotato (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Matopotato. In general, you won't receive notification that an article has been edited but the article should have been added automatically to your watchlist (third link from the right at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you're logged in). In this case, it looks like much of the content was deleted because it didn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines. I've added a welcome notice to your talk page with some helpful links. The best place to start would be be to read WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. Feel free to post any questions to my talk page. With regard to this article - yes, Wikipedia requires subjects to have received "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" to be considered notable. The aim of Wikipedia is to cover things that have been covered elsewhere, not to operate as a vehicle to help subjects "to begin spreading". Have a bit of a read about how these discussions work and then perhaps come back with some policy-based comments for people to consider. Stalwart 111  13:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment - for other editors, this article was accepted at WP:AFC by a now-blocked sock-puppeteer who was blocked the following day and hasn't edited since. Obviously shouldn't have been accepted and it's not the creators fault that it was. Stalwart 111  13:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Stalwart, What is a sock-puppeteer in Wikipedia terminology? I was under the impression that there was some "acceptance procedure" before someone was allowed to allow or reject articles? First version was actually rejected for lack of references, but when that was corrected it went to acceptance with a wish for adding more references later on (unless I remember wrongly) Thanks, Matopotato (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Have a quick read of WP:SOCK - it's someone who operates multiple accounts at the same time. In this instance someone was operating multiple accounts so that they could submit an article with one account and accept it via WP:AFC with another. They also (from the looks of it) accepted a number of other articles (including yours) to make the others look "legit". The person who accepted yours was blocked from editing. Your article should never have been accepted but there was no way you could possibly have known that. On that basis, I'm going to add a suggestion that might be better than outright deletion. Stalwart 111  11:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Userfy - send this back to user-space as a draft to allow the editor to re-submit it when he feels it is ready for the article space again. An unfortunate turn of events that a new editor could not possibly have foreseen. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt and allow him some more time to work on this. Suggest User:Matopotato/Horstmann draft or something similar. Stalwart 111  11:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although the good faith action might be to usefy, but that is only going to create additional work for us in the future, as it'll inevitably either be reintroduced into the main namespace while still substandard, or abandoned and WP:MFDed.  Some rubbish simply isn't worth being userficationinged. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Was not relevant the last time (Articles_for_deletion/Horstmann_technique), is still not relevant. – OttoMäkelä (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, I have found a one definite RS source on google books The Big Picture: Insights from the Spiritual World, some possible (questionable) sources Massage post, Mackay Fitness Central, and OV Guide, appear to be verifiable and does not hurt notability claims. With the one RS sources this information should be merged if possible per WP:PRESERVE. Valoem   talk   contrib  16:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable. Lacks RS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Please read comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV#Horstmann_Technique_edit. I am still somewhat confused as to where to post comments. First step was to cut out referenced material by edits made by QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, and then suggested by Kolbasz for deletion. For the sake of the discussion I think the version before editing would need to be considered when discussing deletion. Thanks, Matopotato (talk) 20:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I doubt anyone will believe me, but I was surprised to find there had already been an article in 2008 (Articles_for_deletion/Horstmann_technique) as OttoMäkelä wrote, anyway possible to read this previous version? Obviously there is someway to do that kind of research before entering an article. I tried to follow the beginners instructions. Perhaps it is possible to add a short instruction how to find out previously deleted articles in order to save anybody's time and effort. Thanks, Matopotato (talk) 20:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Updated the article to contain originally intended scope and information to allow editors to form an opinion of the article as it was before it was cut. Matopotato (talk) 09:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for improving the formatting of the references. In examining the references there is 1. A self published book by the originator 2. and 3. Two very minor fringe magazines certainly not WP:MEDRS to support biomedical information and far from enough to establish notability 4. Another self published book that is clearly fringe and 5. A blog post on a non notable promotional website with no author or date given. No basis for notability, no support for biomedical information, my position remains Delete. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you yourself for helping me with the formatting of the references to get them right. Matopotato (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to List of alternative therapies.  It is not our job as editors to either confirm or deny the TruthTM of this topic.  At the same time, as per WP:Fringe, it is essential that Wikipedia not reify insignificant topics.  But given the 20-year age of this concept, denying its inclusion now is seeming like less-than-convincing censorship.  Suppressing this topic on Wikipedia may simply lead to future objections that the topic is missing, as we are already seeing.  Since there is no particular need to decide that the topic is or is not notable, merge.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2014 (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.