Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neural therapy

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 Keep - Sam Clark's comments make a good summary - Yomangani^talk 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neural therapy

Despite the appearance of references, this is non-notable pseudoscience and spam. Obvious googling "neural therapy" will get you something, but "neural therapy" +procaine gets about 1000 results, +novocain another 80, most to the expected sorts of websites advertising their healing wares. Apparently someone did manage to get this published in a real journal - once, in 1956. The reliability of this article is not aided by the author's inability to spell ganglia. Opabinia regalis 05:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Im not sure your claim that is pseudo-science has any support. It is an alternative form of therapy that it is being practiced, tought and researched. So why dont we delete it in the german wikipedia? [1] Knowing chemistry means little in understanding medicine or biology. Why not place the article for revision since you know as little as I? And since you are such a spiteful person you add that "the reliability of this article is not aided by the author's inability to spell ganglia" when I knew perfectly that I meant ganglion.: Jcbohorquez (talk • contribs)

As I described, there's a distinct lack of published research on the subject, and a lack of sources indicating that it is a common alternative treatment despite this. One paper from 1956 does not make an article, regardless of what the German Wikipedia does or doesn't do. I was referring to the pluralization of "ganglion" as "ganglions", which suggested a lack of familiarity with the subject matter, but as this is a reasonable error for a non-native English speaker I have stricken it. Opabinia regalis 06:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Actually since there are several ganglion it is adecuate to say ganglions. Since you know the rules of wikipedia you can easily get this article deleted. I find this technic insulting and demeaning of what this site stands for. You should promote discussion not censorship. That is why I found your comments so viceral and was compelled to respond.

Language is a fre e moving social construction of meaning. Its purpose is to explain what we understand to others and to ourselves. I just found of encyclopedic value to know of alternative types of therapy. I did my best to improve the article. Theres a recent publication where patients prefer neural therapy over accupunture in accute pain. Since pain is a subjective experience the finding is of value to the medical community (patients and caretakers). I also found the article Ferdinand Heuneken published in 1961, listed in Science Direct. JCBohorquez Jcbohorquez 06:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. Referenced description by the American Cancer Society (linked from the article), plus a fairly large number of google hits[2] suggest that this is a notable alternative therapy. Almost certainly pseudoscientific nonsense, too, but that's not what's at stake here. If it is kept, the article needs to address the point that 'There is no scientific evidence that neural therapy is effective in treating cancer or any other disease.'[3] and to be copyedited. Cheers, Sam Clark 12:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comments were valuable and were added. I´m ignorant on what you call "copyedited". Jcbohorquez 14:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Jcbohorquez

• Delete I would not trust anyone with injecting anything into my ganglions (sic), unless they had peer-reviewed journal articles documenting double-blind clinical trials to back them up. The fact that this AfD is being disputed on grounds like "language being a free moving social construct" is also worrying. Policy-wise, this would appear to fail WP:NOTABILITY, WP:OR, WP:FT and most certainly WP:BOLLOCKS. It would be irresponsible to provide a platform for this nonsense. Byrgenwulf 15:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not for a moment suggesting that this therapy is a good idea, but the evidence does seem to be that's it's fairly widely used, and therefore notable. That's why I argue 'keep'. Part of the improvement the article needs is certainly putting it into neutral, 'some people (referenced) believe that...' style. Cheers, Sam Clark 16:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Byrgenwulf. Even assuming this topic passes the notability test, the improvement it needs just won't happen. Not in this world. (sighs) Anville 16:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and improve. Homeopathic medicine cannot stand doble-bind clinical trials due to the nature of the propused therapy. Yet it is a common practice of alternative medicine and has an article in wikipedia. We should not debate if its scietifically valid, we should debate if its "knowledge" that should be included somehow into the wikipedia. Jcbohorquez 17:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Published scientific studies have been quoted in the Homeopathy article, actually. In addition, there have been double-blind clinical trials on Homeopathy, see the article. They strongly suggest a placebo effect, but the trials have been done. Anyways, the current article is not WP:NPOV. ColourBurst 20:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Tried to improve on comment by removing biased comparisson to accupunture. Jcbohorquez 20:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Niether of the following are good reasons to delete: 1. the article isn't NPOV or well-written; 2. the therapy it describes is pseudoscientific rubbish. 1 is a reason to improve the article. 2 is irrelevant: plenty of articles in WP are about rubbish without promoting rubbish. What's at stake is whether the subject of the article is notable - the evidence seems to be that it is - and whether an adequate article could be written about it - which doesn't seem impossible, given the improvement (e.g. in referencing) so far. Cheers, Sam Clark 13:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - This is not about the efficacy of neural therapy. It is about the notability of the practice. There are over a hundred pubmed articles about the practice as well as lots of google hits. It deserves a well-researched article of its own (I've made some small changes). InvictaHOG 23:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep It appears to me, from the discussion here, that it's notable, and I don't see merit in the other arguments. Gabrielthursday 23:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If there is an organized group of people doing this thing, it deserves an article. The Scientific status is irrelevant, we also have an article about Christian Science.Randroide 12:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

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.