Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qi Spine

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 00:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Qi Spine

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

I'm not sure if this is an advertisement or if this is a notable clinic. Many of the sources have text nearly identical to each other and to this article, and known that Indian media often will publish anything for cash, I suspect that the sources were bought and paid for. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Whether ofr not its a notable clinic, this is advertising. It's a promotional article advocating their specific vesion of complementary medicine. A discuss of the benefits and otherwise of medical techniques belongs in the NPOV articles on the various techniques and methods., not in the articles for any particular clinic or medical center. DGG ( talk ) 02:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article conforms to the 5 pillars of Wikipedia, and meets the notability guidelines. It is unfair to single out a single country for paid news as it is a global phenomena. Will remove the non-core material which has pointed out in the article. Thank you for pointing it out. Dipenuchil (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:05, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:06, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I fail to see how there was "singl[ing] out [of] a single country" here. If it's advertising, it should go. --Nlu (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is promotionally written, and is currently a coat rack for promotion of a particular therapeutic point of view that is not evidence-based. -- Scray (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2014 (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.