Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wurn 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The Wurn Technique

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

No significant coverage in secondary sources. Search of Google news presents only press releases, search of google books and google scholar shows no significant secondary coverage (very brief mentions or only primary articles). Search of "Reviews" in PubMed shows no reviews available. Yobol (talk) 17:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Promotional, not notable. Nothing but press releases at Google News. This is an alternative-medicine technique (and like many alternative-medicine techniques, it claims to be effective for an astonishing variety of unrelated issues, ranging from infertility to endometriosis to fallopian tube occlusion). It was invented (and apparently is only practiced) by a husband-and-wife team of physical therapists. It appears from their press releases that they have copyrighted the terms Wurn Technique® and Clear Passage Physical Therapy®. They have published several articles about their techniques, but the articles are not heavily cited enough to pass WP:ACADEMIC. --MelanieN (talk) 19:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm placing this note here to remind myself to delete the paragraphs about this technique at Dyspareunia and Sexual dysfunction - if the result here is delete. --MelanieN (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Lacks evidence of independent coverage. The only reliable sources available appear to be primary sources directly affiliated with the subject. Could be recreated if/when independent secondary-source coverage is available. MastCell Talk 17:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, per concerns noted above regarding a lack of secondary sources and potential promotion and conflict of interest. The only two sources included in our article are the initial 2008 publication of the technique in a low-impact alt-med journal (Alternative therapies in health and medicine has a 2010 impact factor of 1.215 ) and a 2006 conference poster presentation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: Promotion of non-notable method without sufficient coverage in secondary reviews. We can't use primary sources for a non-notable technique. If this gets much better coverage we can reconsider. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2012 (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.