Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vibration analgesia and back pain


 * 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 does not yet seem to be sufficient material for an article. The possibility of an article on Vibration anaalgesia should be pursued, if there are in fact sufficient 3rd party sourcing. Whether this particulardevice is yet appropriate for mention in such an article would need discussion.  DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Vibration analgesia and back pain

 * – ( View AfD View log )

On the talk page the author na&iuml;vely states "my intention has been to inform Wikipedia users of the gadget that I have developed". That reads to me like an admission that the article is spam. &mdash; RHaworth 22:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC) I would appreciate if I may be given a concrete hint what can be deleted - I have deleted the link to the site where WIKIPEDIA users could find out how to get the gadget which is not too much in their interest but respecting the basic rules that an article must not advertise anything.
 * I have developed and tested the first versions on myself and the process has taken some 10 years to get it such far that people who use it are happy that at least something simple and without side effects on kindney on liver is there. I am sorry if this true and precise information may sound like spam and do not know what can be changed on it if Wikipedia users should get quality information from the source. And I am proud of having excellent advisors all the long way untill now and of being able to offer this reliable light and practical version of the gadget to low back pain sufferers.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE and feedback. --Capekm (talk) 01:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC) — Capekm (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Now please let me know what can be be changed in addition to this and shall be happy to do so. And well I have to admit that I am a naive person as Mr Haworth rightly puts it and a bit gullible at that so Mr Haworth is absolutely right.

--Capekm (talk) 00:28, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Capekm, I realize you are acting in good faith and just trying to spread the word about something you think is valuable. However, that's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a summary of what is already known - not a format for putting out brand new information. A Wikipedia article has to be based on multiple reliable published sources. In this case, it sounds like you are writing about your own invention or discovery, and I haven't been able to find any outside published sources to back it up. The usual places I look for information about a medical device or process are PubMed and Google Scholar; I looked, but those search engines found nothing about use of this technique for back pain. In fact the only article I found about "vibration analgesia" in either archive was an article about using the technique to relieve the pain of heel-sticks in infants; nothing about back pain. I'm afraid this article will have to be deleted, for lack of references in reliable sources. I'm sure there are other places where you can publicize your discovery, but that's not what Wikipedia is for. See WP:Original research for a better explanation. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mealanie, Thank you for reading my article. I understand that this time you cannot rescue an article from deletion proposed by Mr Haworth

Maybe you could not find the references backing up what I am writing - I have read these articles when my librarian (I am a disabled person and so they were very helpful to me then and made a thorough reseach for me those years ago when the web was not yet in practical use here in Europe) found them for me but this method is now an out of date and a time consuming approach. So I have made some basic reseach of the references for you as availabe on the web nowadays:

Lundeberg's works on vibration or vibratory analgesia are extensive and they spread across a time period of at least 20 years beginning in the 80th. I have quoted only one of of them, as this one is the most telling one on the subject

Lundeberg T. Vibratory stimulation for the alleviation of pain.

Please Melanie, I were wondering if you could have a quick look at the diagram fig 6 vibration application points E, F and G application points in particular. Note please that my gadget uses a harmonic mix up of frequences not 100 Hz exactly, which adds to the higher efficiecy of the gadget. The flat brushless vibration units I have developed - which is what you rightly see as a new feature - are 10 to 12 cm apart from each other on both sides of the backbone, as Ludeberg calls it paravertebral. This is on the page 8 of this article published 1984 by Elsevier, an established Medical Publisher and I have duly quoted this in references. Vibratory analgesia is a proven treatment method and my article tries - perhaps clumsily - to give information on a method that is an important alternative to eg TENS - which is propertly covered by Wikipedia, unlike vibration analgesia.

I can go on with other sources supporting what is written in my article on vibration analgesia in back pain. This topic is covered by renomated and reputable researchers - not mine, e g: Vibration reduces thermal pain in adjacent dermatomes. where the vibration effects are demonstrated - for the difference from the back and spine, paravertebral areas in the above mentined Lundeberg's work, on the volar forearm. This is in agreement with my own observations - having little if no importance and notablility but I dare to mention them - in the area of low back arch, but the dermatomes affected by analgesia may be as far from each other as cervical ones and lumbar ones - which is certainly a new observation, so Mr Haworth would be right calling my article SPAM in this regard too, hope I do not sound too disruptive here.

Or for instance another one:

'''[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6208773 Lundeberg T. A comparative study of  the pain alleviating effect of   vibratory stimulation, transcutaneous   electrical nerve stimulation,   electroacupuncture and placebo. Am J  Chin Med. 1984 Summer;12(1-4):72-9]  In this article Lundeberg clearly prove''' vibratory/vibration analgesia to be as effective in myalgic pain as (again at 100 Hz, the frequency used by my gadget - sorry for talking about it - I have it round my waist now sitting at my bedside PC) TENS.

The notability criteria are one of the strongest WIKIPEDIA pillars - and I shall respect them. You are right that I wanted to spread the word about something NOT YET COVERED in Wikipedia, proved valuable by clinical tests. So what next after you have deleted the article? Obviously I am not capable to put a good article together without a bit of help or advise of an Experienced Senior WIKIPEDIAN & Wikignome.

What about your kind giving me a hand and starting this botched&bungled article from scratch, rewriting it? I mean something like the one on TENS as it is published in Wikipedia already? Is it too insolent of me? Maybe I am a bit wordy butt being a disabled person having his secondd hand bedside PC as his sole life line to the society and community life outside his bedroom is a pretty effective and painful exclusion for anybody I think and so having a rare and precious opportuninty to discuss, dispute - even if it hurts a bit if you know that your work is going to be disposed of and thrown away - is dear&welcome to me.

To put an end to this rambling of mine:

ONCE AGAIN MELANIE I would feel HOUNOURED if you can help me to put another article together covering this topic for WIKIPEDIA users meeting your standards in full, including the notability for a medical treatment.