Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NTI Tension Suppression System

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 speedy keep. SK#1: nom withdrawn (non-admin closure) czar · · 22:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NTI Tension Suppression System[edit]

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

This device is already discussed in greater depth on both the bruxism article and the temporomandibular joint dysfunction article. Furthermore, this stub is referenced and inaccurate in its representation of both the risks and the evidence of this kind of treatment. I also had to remove a commercial external link to a page where the product could be purchased. Lesion (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm going to go with "keep" on this. There's this systematic review, and that review alone identifies 17 review articles covering NTI. The device receives nontrivial coverage in this and this, both legit-looking textbooks. There's enough independent reliable secondary source coverage to write an article, WP:42 is satisfied. Yes the existing article has problems and Tepi you started to fix them, which is appreciated, but generally, the fact that there are some problems with the existing article (which article doesn't?) isn't a reason to delete. Zad68 01:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe I am being a bit deletion-happy here, but I am finding a lot of bullsh*t surrounding the topic of temporomandibular joint dysfunction, e.g. biofeedback headband, neuromuscular dentistry, and (my personal favorite page so far) Alex Mehrnaz Naini. I added a few mainstream references which logically describe the possible effects of partial coverage splints (I had previously added to the main TMD page) so I feel a bit better about his page now, but I still think this whole topic could be better presented on occlusal splint. I just hope that people will visit the pages for these conditions that this device is claimed to treat and hopefully seeing such therapy presented with due weight and evidence, instead of taking this page at face value. Lesion (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the lead on the AFD for Alex Mehrnaz Naini, just !voted. Oh I'm right with you, I hate when attempts are made to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes! Spam, spam, spam... this is just a "make sure not to throw the baby out with the bath water" situation. Zad68 00:39, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm finding more systematic reviews that include RCTs of this device, among other occlusal splints. Notable, and deletion is inappropriate-- rash decision on my part. But the article needs work, currently it poorly presents the available evidence, and is in isolation of the bigger picture-- in particular the efficacy of other treatments for TMD and bruxism, etc. Arguably the page should be moved to Nociceptive Trigeminal Inhibition Tension Suppression System too, possibly in sentence case, or all caps not sure what the policy is. FYI I've read of one of the textbooks you refer to above, the Dawson "smile design" one (most of it, the non cosmetic/esthetic parts about TMD anyway), and this is not a mainstream view of TMD. There is a 2 page dedication to God, family and his patients at the start of the book and it's all downhill from there. Lesion (talk) 20:56, 5 June 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.