Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cymatic therapy (2nd nomination)

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. Courcelles 23:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cymatic therapy[edit]

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

Fringe medical therapy lacking reliable sources to build an article off of. Has issues pertaining to WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS specifically. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure - nothing can be found on either Google news or scholar, except for patents and this single entry, outside of Wikipedia. I quick look on Google Books does reveal quite a few books, but a few are self-published textbooks, and I can't tell how many are reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an obscure and preposterous fringe medical theory that failes WP:MEDRS. It's also worth checking out Vibroacoustic therapy which is virtually the same idea but credited it to a different inventor and also subject to AFD. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - it is not fringe medical theory. VAT is not fringe medical theory - FDA approved for 3 medical claims and many hospitals and allied health professionals use this for more than 3 decades. VAT uses low frequencies - Cymatic uses high frequencies. I have posted many articles from PubMed and Universities.Cyrinus (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - first reference is dead link, second is spam. Upon searching for references, only patents, some books, and an obscure article or two are found- all of which fail WP:MEDRS. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of WP:MEDRS is wrong. Do proper research before voice your opinion. If music therapy is compliant then cymatics is compliant. Cyrinus (talk) 05:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to that opinion. The facts, remain, however, that the sources are not compliant. And please stop with the "if X then Y" argument. You've been told many times that that is an invalid argument on Wikipedia. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Cyrinus, please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF, that explains why we do not accept arguments of the form you made above. --Salimfadhley (talk) 09:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - may rise to wp:NFRINGE per this, if CSICOP is considered a RS on what is FRINGE. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This pseudoscience subject is popular with modern naturopathy adherents. I was introduced to the topic via a podcast I stumbled upon here. Upon going through the page's references, it is clear that a large body of "work" exists on the subject. At any rate, a proper encyclopedic treatment of the literature would be beneficial to humanity. Krushia (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question are you suggesting that the podcast is a WP:MEDRS that justifies the notability of this subject? --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I do not believe one will find much at all for WP:MEDRS as this is in the domain of modern (evolving) pseudoscience and is a metatheory. It appears there is substantial WP:RS to establish notability as a pseudoscience belief that combines work such as Niche hypothesis under naturopathy. Krushia (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it is difficult to interpret MEDRS. the guidelines are biased towards medicine and pharma - not relevant to mainstream health, wellness - or integrative medicine which is becoming the mainstream in many countries. if we take MEDRS black and white - most of the articles in the wiki must be deleted. good example theta healing was approved and it is on wiki. pemf and other energy medicine, music therapy etc. wiki should include all health and wellness modalities without any bias. future is friendly. people use cymatic therapy, pemf, vibroacoustics, physioacoustics, vibration therapy, sound therapy for many decades... some are even approved by FDA and Health Canada. wiki readers must have freedom of information. enough said. Cyrinus (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete Cymatic therapy is not a fringe theory. It isn't mainstream, but so what? Different sound based methods have been helping people in healing process for centuries. See for example raga therapy or Tibetan bowls, to name the few. So healing with sound is nothing new actually. What's wrong with acknowledging modern developments? Unless you want to have an out-of-date encyclopaedia with narrow, orthodox world views, do not delete that article. Oh, and by the way, yes, there are many crappy sources about the subject, that doesn't mean it's false. Fizalfizal (talk) 23:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 14:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without even leaving the first sentence I'd be sticking a {{Confusing}} at the top. It doesn't even say what the therapy is for. Putting that aside the only references are both dead links (so is the therapy itself?). Google search for Cymatic therapy yields nothing useful. Looking at google books, there are quiet a few books, but per WP:QUESTIONABLE most are questionable and appear to be self-promoting in nature (promoting their own techniques/alternative medicines). This article fails WP:RSMED. --CyberXRef^talk 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not seem to have much, if any, notability. Could conceivably be merged or redirected somewhere, but I'm not sure where. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Seems like it might possibly have notability as a pseudoscience. Searching for sources I go a lot of 'noise' from unrelated concepts. They might exist, but I doubt it. Grayfell (talk) 01:13, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reverted an edit that added several votes under different names and changed votes that had already been cast. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:22, 19 December 2013 (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.