| Revision as of 08:55, 20 November 2013 editPiotrus (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers285,738 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:06, 20 November 2013 edit undoStuartyeates (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers73,163 edits deleteNext edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| :::I'd like to point out that it was Alexbrn himself who reduced the article to a stub right before he tried to have it deleted. And there was no consensus about his deletion of sourced material. The discussion about the unreliability of the sources he alleges has just started. --] (]) 08:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | :::I'd like to point out that it was Alexbrn himself who reduced the article to a stub right before he tried to have it deleted. And there was no consensus about his deletion of sourced material. The discussion about the unreliability of the sources he alleges has just started. --] (]) 08:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Thanks. Removing 90% of ''referenced'' article's content, and then AfD-ing it, is problematic enough that a user conduct discussion may be merited somewhere else. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 08:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | ::::Thanks. Removing 90% of ''referenced'' article's content, and then AfD-ing it, is problematic enough that a user conduct discussion may be merited somewhere else. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">]|]</sub> 08:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' as it stands, because the article is a ] for acupuncture promoters. It could be rewritten as something else, but that would require a buttload more reliable secondary sources and a completely different focus. ] (]) 09:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:06, 20 November 2013
German Acupuncture Trials
- German Acupuncture Trials (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
There is insufficient depth and breadth of secondary coverage to warrant a standalone article on this topic (a number of clinical trials on acupuncture in the 2000s). After deletion, a mention of them might be considered for the main acupuncture article, though with other later trials being cited there it is not clear if they would even deserve a mention. Alexbrn 06:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- This is an article about 3 very large RCTs which were instigated at the behest of a number of German statutory health insurances. They are notable because on the basis of their result (among other), the Federal Joint Committee (Germany) decided to reimburse acupuncture treatment for low back pain and knee pain. We have one reliable secondary source and three reliable primary sources here. There also is an article about this at the German Misplaced Pages since ages... User:Alexbrn and User:QuackGuru are trying to take this article apart because of anti-acupuncture bias. They already deleted most of the article on the grounds that the sources were not reliable (the primary ones because they are primary, the secondary one - from the Federal Joint Committee itself - because it allegedly was not independent), without consensus. I've appealed to the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard already, but the case is still pending. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Weak keep. The article is a pitful stub, but it shows reliable refs, and Google Book search for "German Acupuncture Trials" gives a number of reliably looking hits. I think the topic could be expanded beyond a stub, and likely has inherent notability. German speakers may be able to comment on German sources. Ping me if there are any major developments and I can revise my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that it was Alexbrn himself who reduced the article to a stub right before he tried to have it deleted. And there was no consensus about his deletion of sourced material. The discussion about the unreliability of the sources he alleges has just started. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Removing 90% of referenced article's content, and then AfD-ing it, is problematic enough that a user conduct discussion may be merited somewhere else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like to point out that it was Alexbrn himself who reduced the article to a stub right before he tried to have it deleted. And there was no consensus about his deletion of sourced material. The discussion about the unreliability of the sources he alleges has just started. --Mallexikon (talk) 08:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete as it stands, because the article is a WP:COATHOOK for acupuncture promoters. It could be rewritten as something else, but that would require a buttload more reliable secondary sources and a completely different focus. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)