Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sonopuncture

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. (non-admin closure) Alpha Quadrant ^talk 15:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sonopuncture[edit]

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

Article does not appear to have any reliable sources. Only reference is a personal and commercial site touting the benefits of sonopuncture. Hasteur (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC) *DELETE - The only source is the private business page of a person who apparently invented this pseudoscience, which is both NRS and ADVERT. The whole article is NRS and ADVERT PPdd (talk) 14:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unrelated to deletion debate
Please do not blank the article while it is being discussed. The purpose of the procedure is to debate it on merits. Hasteur (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] OK. Do you know why my original nomination to AfD of sonopuncture did not show on the list? Also why did my nominations to AfD for Accupressure and Accupuncture point did not show? PPdd (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just needs work per our editing policy. I have done a little, adding some better sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:31, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This has been on my rewrite to do list for an age, but the sources really just do not cut it. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:54, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty enough Google book[1] and Scholar[2] results to demonstrate some notability. First Light (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has adequate sources. --Kkmurray (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - CFORK for Acupuncture. All the info is already in the acupuncture article. PPdd (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Acupuncture. This certainly deserves mention, but really only needs to be discussed in this section, which already has started to cover it fairly well.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That section was started by an improper cut and paste copy of the article in question, violating copyright by failing to give proper attribution of the authorship of the content. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, a proper cut and paste merge should be done to give attribution. It still fite better there.--Yaksar (let's chat) 06:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the appropriate section of Acupuncture. Deserves to be covered in the main article. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable from sources, particularly those in article along with books and journals. The article should and can be expanded to be more than its acupuncture subsection. If it can't, it can always be redirected outside this AfD.--NortyNort (Holla) 11:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to improve the article. The AfD isn't based on what the article "could be" but what it is. At this point I'm in favor of a merge & redirect as this does explain the concept better but is extremely dependent on acupuncture topic and would fit quite niceley in it's length and subspecialization. Hasteur (talk) 15:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not really about notability, which no one seems to be contesting. Its about CFORK, and all the content is in the acupuncture article, which is not much. Also, without the context provided in the acupuncture article, this article makes little sense. To include that content would be pure CFORK. There is really not much that can go in the article that is not already in acupuncture. PPdd (talk) 23:30, 8 March 2011 (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.