Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse breathing (2nd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus after one month of discussions and relistings. No consensus for a merge either. Further discussions for merge, if needed, can be discussed in the talkpages, outside AfD. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse breathing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Reverse breathing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No good sources in 15+ years, I couldn't find anything greater than blog quality asa skurce when I checked Big Money Threepwood (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we require more intensive sources for health related topics? If so the sources we have so far probably do not meet the bar. Industrial Insect (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article currently stands. I'm sure there are plenty of books espousing the benefits of this technique, but that drags us into WP:MEDRS territory, which this absolutely fails. This could perhaps be integrated as a small paragraph in qigong, with cites that practitioners claim medical benefits. But right now, this is an overly credulous article that does not strike the proper tone for a technique with such strong claims of health benefits. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP as there are lots of book coverage. This, this, this, this, this, this and this are enough to establish notability. --Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ITEXISTS is not going to override WP:MEDRS. It may be notable within its selected practices, but this article would need to be blown up and built from scratch to excise all the "health benefits" claims with no scientific backing, and then there's nothing left for an article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandThatFeeds hold on please.
    Reverse breathing is one kinda practice for physical and mind power. Like various practices of Yoga, Reverse breathing is also a part of the practice of physical strength. Indian action actor Vidyut Jammwal also said that he practices it. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh also spoke about Reverse breathing here alongside in a controvercial statement. This paper also speaks about the subject.
    It is not about WP:MEDRS but about traditional practice that exists for hundreds of years. - Twinkle1990 (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a traditional practice with no scientific backing to support its supposed health benefits. Full stop. Hence my suggestion for discussing its traditional practice in qigong and other appropriate articles. The current article is too credulous to unproven health benefits and, if you excise that content, there's virtually nothing left. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HandThatFeeds this Reverse breathing is beyond of my capacity. Probably not for females, so I can't.
    But, some traditional practices never needed any kind of modern medical science just like Yoga. Modern medical sciences are evaluating the traditional practices for health benefits. For example Acupuncture is called Pseudoscience here in Wikipedia. But this, this and this establishes notability of Acupuncture. (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't follow your argument here, but I've made my point and we're going in circles. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The subject can be better described as part of Qigong, as it stands the health claims are tendentious given the citations and the one PubMed article does not indicate a strong connection between this practice and any of these claims. If it does need to exist it would fare better if completely rewritten and re-sourced. Reconrabbit 17:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided. Is there a possible Merge or Redirect target?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe qigong would be the only appropriate target for that. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 15:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested with Qigong to a subsection or mention there. I note the Qigong article is available in 47 languages, while Reverse breathing is only available in English. The Reverse breathing article is available in the Internet Archive for accessing. 5Q5|✉ 11:38, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as there is not yet consensus and to assess a possible Merge to Qigong
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:36, 22 March 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Reverse_breathing_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1216287835"