Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usage of acupuncture in the military


 * 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. I'm willing to userfy if someone can use it, and as noted this information still exists in the history of Acupunture. However, other than a vague wave to search engine results, there has been no showing of independent notabilty. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Usage of acupuncture in the military

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems like an unnecessary spinout from Acupuncture, possibly intended as a POV-fork to lend legitimacy to an alternative medical practice. Brainy J ~ ✿ ~ ( talk ) 13:34, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the author did some good work here, but it is mis-labeled. Two possible notable topics this material could form the basis of are "Battlefield Acupuncture" - a specifically American development that is notable, or better yet "Richard Niemtzow" the notable MD responsible for the battlefield acupuncture phenomenon as well as a few significant studies on acupuncture effectiveness. I request this not be deleted, but that the author use this material for a more specific, focused article on one of the two topics I mentioned, then delete this article.Herbxue (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge somewhere else - this looks very like it was carved out of another article. Don't delete, but find the right place for it - David Gerard (talk) 16:25, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The material is already in the history of the acupuncture article, specifically here Talk:Acupuncture, we don't need this article to exist to merge that text, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is a synthesis of sources to create a new topic. Only one of the sources is a secondary source, mostly about Col. Richard Niemtzow not acupuncture in the military as a topic (the rest are primary), and its a routine news story at that. A sign of notability of acupuncture in the military would be an academic book on the topic, for example. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I find that actually pretty convincing. Redirect to Acupuncture (I have an aversion to breaking a URL wherever feasible) - David Gerard (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * my two cents is that this information, if not already, should be put into an existing acupuncture page. Cap020570 (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The question of content going into the acupuncture article should be left to the current RfC I think, else we have a situation where an AfD discussion is trying to trump an ongoing RfC discussion. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * you're right! I didn't follow the link over to the acupuncture page! Cap020570 (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge is the reasonable outcome. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: OR and synthesis, and POV fork. Material cobbled together from various inrelated news sources to create a topic that does not exist in the secondary literature. Sources do not meet WP:MEDRS, and are almost entirely primary sources. Already rejected for inclusion at the main Acupuncture article, so a merge is not likely. Fringe promotion of no encyclopedic value. Delete in its entirety. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly notable topic with significant coverage in numerous independent sources (just do a Google search for the "Acupuncture" and "Military"). There is no consensus to merge this to Acupuncture. -A1candidate (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:ITSNOTABLE is not borne out by the WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and WP:GOOGLEHITSproves nothing. I see no reliable independent secondary sources discussing the topic at all. It pure OR and synth. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2013 (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.