Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quantum-Touch (3rd nomination)

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 Delete, consensus is that there is insufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 10:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quantum-Touch

Quantum-Touch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article is about a therapeutic touch company that does not rise to the level of WP:CORP. It is impossible to get secondary sources on this particular practice (outside some trivial mentions: for example, the one BBC article only parrots quantum-touch's website and does not offer any attempt at objective reporting about the company) and therefore it will be impossible to satisfy neutrality as well as reliability of sources for this article. Please note that a number of interested parties have tried to (re)write the article in order to make it appear superficially as well-sourced, but it is in fact only sourced to quantum-touch believer websites. Also note that the previous AfD was closed incorrectly as keep when the consensus was clearly to delete. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

See related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aura-Soma

• Delete as nominator. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - No reliable sources - article would not be able to satisfy WP:NPOV considering the nature of the references. Also, WP:FRINGE. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. The article has undergone significant changes during the last AfD, and in it's current form, I don't see any problems with it. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide how the BBC should do it's reports; if they wish to copy and paste a press release from a company, that is their perogative, and until they are no longer widely regarded as a reliable source, we can't simply discount their reports by choice. Also, it should be obvious that most of the references and links will go to websites maintained by groups who subscribe to the belief that this corporation's products. The E-meter used by Scientology and the Religious Technology Center that produces it are similar entities with similar articles that have the same kind of issues that you put forth as grounds for deletion, when in fact, they are simply inherent to this kind of article. Also, WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED should be considered here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Question I agree that the company itself is not notable. The article, however, appears to be primarily about a technique instead of a business. Does anyone know how this differs from other forms of energy work? If this is one company's brand-name version of energy work, dressed up with some particle physics terms as a marketing ploy, then it should be redirected to the general article on the subject. We would not, for example, support an article on every single computer company's "certified technician" training program. However, if it's a particular kind of work that is materially different from all the other kinds of energy work, then the technique itself might be notable (although I doubt it, given the lack of references). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a particular kind of energy work. Hohohahaha (talk) 03:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Redirect Thanks. In that case, I think it should be redirected to energy work or therapeutic touch. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails all forms of notablity, including WP:FRINGE and WP:ORG, due to a lack of non-trivial coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. The BBC reference is the definition of "trivial" coverage, and the remainder of the sources are questionably reliable (e.g. promotional DVD's) and directly affiliated with the subject (hence not independent). At the very least, this should be redirected to energy therapy, though I think deletion would be more appropriate. Note that I noticed this AfD on the fringe theories noticeboard, so take that for what you will. MastCell ^Talk 21:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I started reworking this article from a complete and utter vanispamtisement back at the end of January. The (trivial) BBC mention gave me hope that reliable secondary sources could be turned up, but such has not been the case. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 21:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Not readily distinguishable from thousands of other slight variations on energy therapy et. al. The BBC mention isn't sufficient to support an article, as insufficient third-party coverage to build a reliable, NPOV article. Also, in the spirit of WP:IGNORE, I feel like articles from reliable sources that are transparently the result of an editor being up against a deadline and going Googling should be discounted. An half-paragraph from the BBC's '10 Guys I met in the Grocery' wouldn't entitle Micky the stock boy to his own article, sourced from his mum. --Clay Collier (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The gold standard here is non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. The only reliable source here is the BBC; the article in question is titled "10 lesser-known alternative therapies." That speaks for itself. No evidence of notability. <eleland/talkedits> 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. non notable Dlabtot (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC
• Keep 1)200,000 google hits; 2) mentioned by the BBC 3)the book itself is in it's 3rd edition 4)the third edition is #7,000 on Amazon's overall sales 5)the book is Amzon's #10 for energy healing 6)the book is Amazon's #4 for accupunture and accupressure! [[1]]

,7) mention in the skeptic's dictionary newsletter [[2]] 8) mentions in various reasonably prominent websites/media [[3]], [[4]], [[5]] 9)"Significant Breakthrough", Alternative Medicine Magazine [[6]] (yes still looking for the article) 10) Appears to have a section about it in this book "The Everything Reiki Book: Channel Your Positive Energy to Reduce Stress, Promote Healing, and Enhance Your Quality of Life (Everything Series),Chapter 22 - Other Touch or Energy Based Therapies, Phylameana lila Desy ISBN-10 159337030X" 11) Is that enough? =) 12) Bad faith nomination and canvasing- until a few hours ago the poster of this afd was interested in working on this article, till some portions he really liked were shown to be invalid, then he afd's and posts a message about this deletion at the WP:FTN. Canvasing anyone? Hohohahaha (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not enough RS even to describe what the technique is. If decision is to keep, reduce to short stub based on BBC only until other RS appear. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 15:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Two books, one in its 3rd edition; DVDs; growing recognition; most points already listed above. Also, agree about bad faith nomination. The article as it stands today is a mere shadow of what it was 6 months ago. afd nomination by a key editor of the article is distressing, as it is obvious that the editor was not even well informed about what Quantum-Touch is. Has ScienceApologist even read the forward of the book? Trane Francks (talk) 07:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

One does not need to be "informed" about a candidate for deletion. These discussions revolve around Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If anything, someone entirely too close to the subject risks a WP:COI or slanted view. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that working on an article means that you have to support its existence. I've certainly encountered articles that looked like they had promise, but the longer I worked on them, the less they appeared to comply with basic policies. If, in working on it, the editor comes to the conclusion that the article is inappropriate, then the responsible thing to do is to nominate it for deletion, not to keep it around as a monument to sunk costs and inertia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, the BBC mention is trivial, and the other sources provided don't seem that reliable. Non-notable fringe/quack medicine. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:12, 23 March 2008 (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.