Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical method

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. Consensus appears to indicate that the topic of the current article - as opposed to different topics which are also named "clinical method" but aren't the focus of the article - is not notable Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:17, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical method

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:03, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note – Please see Talk:Clinical method for discussion in support of PROD. I think it all applies here as well. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete This is nonsense. Jytdog (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete at first glance, it appears to be written in English, then you realise it is in Gibberish. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There can probably be an actual translation made from the French article at some point and it may be just fine, or it may be better off as a section on the main article for the apparent person largely behind it. But right now, it's just AFAIK original research explained in gibberish. TimothyJosephWood 17:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy per WP:ATD; the article is phenomenally poorly written, but a WP: BEFORE suggests the topic clearly is notable. After all, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, and masters of style can be addressed out pig mainspace. — fortunavelut luna 09:22, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi that is remarkably unthougthful !vote coming from you. Of course people in medicine sometimes mention the phrase "clinical methods". It is basically "the practice of medicine" in normal speech, and is not what whoever wrote this, is apparently trying to discuss... which appears to be some muddle-headed fringe bucket of stuff. Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "No evidence of notability"... Except the term gets over 14,000 Google Books hits, including, for example, this one which describes it as a specific method within psychology. It looks like there is a very large body of publications on this subject— I don't disagree that the current article is one step away from gibberish, but that has no bearing on the subject's actual notability (for which there seems to be lots of evidence, no?). (Also, Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi— what is "out pig mainspace"? Is that like Pigs in space??) KDS4444 ^(talk) 00:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

no. Those are hits referring to "medicine" which is NOT WHAT THIS GARBLE IS ABOUT. This is altmed bullshit gussied up in medicalish terminology that is so vague that braindead google searches yield "Oh!!! So many hits!! There must be something here!!!!!". Hell is other people Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those are hits related to the term in question and the subject of psychology. We have no other article on the clinical method, and I am not sure that this one needs to be deleted on the basis of garble. I think that the current article is meant to be about the clinical method of psychoanalysis/ psychology (as opposed to being about a city in India or a kind of fungus or an asteroid or a political movement or something). The wording is, of course, French in its style, and the translation is rough at best— that makes it a bad translation, not unremarkable as a subject. Is there some other article that covers this method to which this one should redirect? If this article is not about psychology, then what do you suppose it is meant to be about?

As alternative to the existing article, I have just put together a very brief article on the clinical method based on what I could glean from just the first page of Google Books results. It is here. I don't think stub articles are things to aim for, but the stub has two independent sources, one of them published by Elsevier Health Sciences, which is usually pretty reliable. KDS4444 ^(talk) 01:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a technical term. You seem to be reaching into mystery. There is no mystery. Only babble. The phrase is used the exact same way in medicine. It is "what the doctor does when seeing a patient". You can replace "doctor" with any of therapist, nurse, dentist, veterinarian, etc etc Jytdog (talk) 01:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It IS a technical term, absolutely! And maybe eventually we should have articles titled "Clinical method (psychology)" and "Clinical method (nursing)" (except that the article from the nursing book I reference is on psychology) and "Clinical method (dentistry)", inasmuch as those are actual topics in those fields. And until we need to disambiguate these different topics, we just have one article on "Clinical method", for which I have now composed what I think is an acceptable stub article from the perspective of psychology where it appears to represent an actual, notable theoretical approach and which is discussed specifically and non-trivially in multiple reliable independent verifiable secondary published sources. Even if the current version is babble-speak to most, it is apparently a real concept in psychology (at least), and not babble-speak. If you checked out some of my references (which I am guessing you have, yes?) then this should be clear. For still more evidence of this you may also have a look at this reference, this one (which does a nice job of separating it from the meaning the term has in medicine), or this one (all from just the first page of search results!). I am pretty sure the mere existence of these sources means the concept is notable, and I doubt an admin who has a look at them is going to move to delete the namespace, even if the apparent consensus in terms of !votes is against it at the moment. Hell is being told you are brain-dead and wrong by other people you respect when you are certain you are not wrong. KDS4444 ^(talk) 04:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Not a technical term. If you google "clinical method medicine" or "clinical method dentist" or "clinical method nurse" you get the same kind of results that you get with psychology.Jytdog (talk) 15:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Maybe this makes sense in French on Fr-WP, but it is gibberish here. Time for TNT, at a minimum. Carrite (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense, then create a redirect to Medicine#Clinical_practice because it is a plausible search term. VQuakr (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't know if this is mistranslated or just plain old nonsense ("psychic care particular practice"... what?), but I do know the encyclopedia is better off without it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.