Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vertebrorevitology


 * 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.  Sandstein  12:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Vertebrorevitology

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Is advertising for the method in question using stuff like facebook as refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The word “ Vertebrorevitology” means vertebro ( lat. vertebra) – spinal column, backbone; re (lat. re – repeated action) – restoration; vita (lat. vita) –life; logy ( gr. Logos – word, knowledge) – science. Translating word for word the notion of "vertebrorevitology" means "a science giving the second life (restoring) to the backbone." I just threw up a little in my mouth.  At any rate, the self published sources offered would appear not to meet the medical source guidelines.  Google Scholar knoweth it not, and for a medical technique I'd expect that not to be the case.  The article tells you the method is patented; but if it explains what it consists of in English, that part eluded me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Terrible sources (the one book referenced doesn't have anything to do with the "Vertebrorevitology" subject). Also, there's some question as to the credentials of the guy who came up with this method: .  0 Google book results as well.  --Stvfetterly (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not science but marketing. The references seem to be hopeless. If Ben Goldacre gets his hands on this... Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete No reliable sources, incomprehensible pseudoscience. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Doc James, thank you for your remark. I didn't know that facebook is not good as reference, I used it to show the results of MRI before and after treatment. If it is a bad ref I can remove it.
 * I didn't mention any clinic or something else and I did not see any advertising in this article.
 * I don't know if I can use as ref the web-site of author of the method. If it is allowed I can add it.
 * I would really appreciate any help in editing. I believe you should give a chance to this article because something new doesn't mean something bad.


 * UPD Google search shows 325 results. Google Scholar didn't show results in English but it's just the matter of time, because Google Scholar in Russian shows 3 results. Author of the method ( whose name I didn't mention in the article) works in Ukraine and his book will be published in England next year.


 * I don't understand how international patents could be spam. I will be glad to discuss the subject of the article without preconceived notion.JonnyD55 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC).  — Jonnyd55 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * JonnyD, the problem with references like Facebook and the author's website is that they are not independent; they are written by the subject and so they could say anything; there is no verification by a third party. All information on Wikipedia has to be supported by independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * JonnyD, I agree with what MelanieN has written about independent reliable sources. Even when the book you mentioned comes out next year, it will still not qualify as an independent source.  Also, it is not the policy of Wikipedia to give new ideas a chance.  Wikipedia responds to what has been published.  It does not try to anticipate what may be published in the future.  See WP:CRYSTAL.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete: Patent spam. No reliable sources provided to establish notability, and a Google search turned up nothing of substance except that the guy is considered a quack. It's basically meaningless pseudoscientific blither. Of zero encyclopedic value. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I don't know if Facebook is officially no good as WP:RS, but if it isn't then it ought to be. --Legis (talk - contribs) 07:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a notable or generally accepted procedure. Seems to be provided by only a single practitioner (who is titled on his website as "professor", so there is no telling what his actual professional credentials are - physician? chiropractor? none at all?). No independent sourcing. --MelanieN (talk) 15:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2011 (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.