Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Acupuncture point

Ok, let's go through the article. Starting with the lede... there is quite a lot cited. Specifically, I do not understand why you consider "Evid Based Complement Alternat Med - Oxford University Press" as an unreliable non-medical source. After all, this is alternative medicine, no?

Down to the sections, I'm not sure how section "Categories of body acupuncture points" matches the list of points in List of acupuncture points. This list is unreferenced, so you may disregard this (even though I'm wary in such cases that we are throwing away information). The same goes for "Non-meridian points". Section "Efficacy of specific distal points" is cited (in part) – is this covered in the acupuncture article? "Criticism of TCM theory" is covered. I have no idea about the next section, and if you say this has nothing to do with acupuncture points we'll skip that. Coming to "Standardization" – shouldn't this be included in the List of acupuncture points then?

Sorry for this step-by-step discussion, but after all discussion is what an AfD is about, no? Thanks, Nageh (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Before we start, you should please cite one single thing that should be in acupuncture point, and not be in acupuncture.

(2) Your line by line analysis is EXACTLY why this article violates WP:FORK, as it has all been discussed at acupuncture ad nausem. For example, your first example is this reference - "Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that seeks to understand the sources and to encourage rigorous research in this new, yet ancient world of complementary and alternative medicine." This kind of thing was discussed ad nauseum at acupuncture. This duplicates talk at acupuncture, so is an argument for redirect.
(3a) "Peer reviewd" by alternative medicine practitioners is not MEDRS, for reasons that get re-explained at acupuncture talk every few weeks.

(3b) MEDRS prohibits primary source studies, for obvious reasons about the very meaning of the .05 p-value publishing standard universally used in medical publications, which produces random positive effect studies about 1 time in 20.

(4) Everyone has already agreed that "categories of acupuncture points" should be in acupuncture, but no one has provided an acceptable RS.
(5) The "distal point study" was extensively discussed at acupuncture talk. I did not delete it, but reworded it in compliance with the article content. The word "distal point" does not occur in the source. PPdd (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(6)"Standard" is an adjective in a book title about nomenclauture, not points, and is not a "standard" which is a noun, so the section is ridiculous. In fact, in discussion at acupuncture talk right now, is a discussion of "standards" that were actually adopted for locating acupuncture points by the acupuncture community, but this has nothing to do with the sources.

- I really did read each line, read the source, and only deleted for good reason, just so I did not have to go through what we are doing now, which I have already done over and over at acupuncture.

Please don't forget to answer (1), or better yet, maybe consider changing your opposition to merging. If anything new with RS comes up, it will get in to the acupuncture article with no problem. :) PPdd (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, your reply was very helpful! I will change my vote. FYI, your only "mistake" was the missing transparency – at least you should have explained from the outset why you deleted a whole lot of stuff before starting this AfD. Then I will also not be so trigger-happy. :) Thanks again, Nageh (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. You are right about my error in nomitating for delete after a number of deletions. The problem was that I only thought of nominating to delete after I had made all those deletions. And I specifically learned how to use ~~strike out~~ because I changed my vote so often in discussions. :) PPdd (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot mentioning this in yesterday's discussion, but I could not find some text in the acupuncture article that I thought should. I am speaking of the second paragraph in the lede section and the "Scientific research" section. Text therein should be mentioned in the main article not because they are MEDRS sources but mainly because it seems that some of the arguments in these sources are repeatedly brought up.

I'll put it differently. If there is a significant number of sources claiming e.g. that acupuncture points are associated with low areas of electrical impedance then this is notable and should be included in an article. If you have a MEDRS source that disagrees you can always bring this up to contradict the other sources. For example, ref 2 says "Ultrasound research finds lower electrical impedance over collagenous bands at some points (Large Intestine meridian) but not others (Liver or Bladder meridians)."

In general, don't mistake PRIMARY sources as argument that nothing should be said about them. It first of all means there shouldn't be an article about them. But if there is a significant number of (non-MEDRS) stating a certain viewpoint it is a matter of NPOV to include them (e.g., possibly as the low-area-of-electrical-impedance argument). As I said before you can always bring up MEDRS sources to dispute them in the article text. Nageh (talk) 09:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, this source establishes both notability as well as provides scepticism, and is worthwhile candidate to be included as a reference in the main article. Nageh (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another source that refutes the popular (and hence notable) argument of low-electrical impedance areas. Nageh (talk) 10:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noted there is one sentence about it: "The electrical resistance of acupuncture points and meridians have also been studied, with conflicting results." I think this could be extended – note this won't change my vote because of the little that will be left in acupuncture point anyway.

Also from acupuncture point: "However some empirical research indicates links between acupuncture points and neurovascular bundles,[6] trigger points,[7][8] regions of low electrical impedance,[2] and areas of enhanced migration of hypodermically injected technetium-99m nuclear tracers.[9] They have been anatomically associated in 80% of cases with fascial planes of connective tissue between muscles.[3]"

I'm not going to look up which of these are repeatedly brought up by acupuncture advocates but nothing of this is mentioned in the main article. Maybe this could be improved as well.

Just some concluding thoughts. Nageh (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]