Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VibroAcoustic 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 Delete --JForget 23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VibroAcoustic therapy

VibroAcoustic therapy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This might be a tough one, especially since the author removed my maintenance tags. Originally I attempted to take this on as a cleanup project, but its a new field and I question its notability. The article is (apparently) full of OR, and is completely written in a way that a lay-person could not understand. I'm wondering if scrapping it and/ or completely rewriting is a better idea. If someone wants to take on a rescue mission, be my guest, otherwise, lets get a consensus going on this. Mr Senseless (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. not notable.IslaamMaged126 (talk) 22:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Can you please tell me what is wrong with the article? I am totally new to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthrifon (talk • contribs)
  • The nominator considers the article to be original research, which cannot be included in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - author apparently not interested in making article Wiki-ready, if such could be done. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: An editor's behavior at an article has no bearing on that article's position vis-a-vis deletion. We can't hold an irresponsible editor's actions or attitudes against an article he happens to be editing. We need to consider the merits of the article on its own. If you think the article lacks merit on its own -- independent of any one editor's actions -- please say so. - Revolving Bugbear 23:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete It looks like psuedo-scientific nonsense copied and pasted from another source. It seems to claim that playing music to a patient can reduce pain because of the physical effect of the 'acoustic energy' of the music, rather than a relaxing, psychological effect. Nick mallory (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I would like to point to Vibroacoustic medicine aswell. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. While there are references on the Internet regarding the subject matter, it is not clear whether the article describes a prescribed therapy or a pseudo-scientific alternative remedy. Given the poor & unverified content of the article per WP:V and the likely personal research in violation of WP:NOR, it would be better to delete the article. Mh29255 (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, reads like somebody's pet theory. And Vibroacoustic medicine should be added to this discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 17:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Article reads like a personal essay and the material is unsalvageably unencyclopedic in this form. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete both per WP:FRINGE. There appears to be a lack of independent, multiple sources to affirm the theories' notability beyond fancruft. Bearian (talk) 19:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:FRINGE. --Sharkface217 22:48, 29 December 2007 (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.