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 redirect to Cold compression therapy. Merge might be a better reading of the consensus, but I don't really see anything worth merging, so I'll just redirect. The history is still there, so if somebody wants to salvage something to add to the target, they can do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hilotherapy[edit]

Hilotherapy (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)

Self promotion/ not neutral HaraldW1954 (talk) 09:12, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think this is probably a good candidate to delete, but lots of work is required to check the references, and to document them properly. There are many references that appear reliable, but those are mostly behind paywalls and cannot be verified. The few non-self published ones I could check did not mention the subject, and just confirmed general statements that are only tangential such as that frostbite can result when cryogenic treatment temperatures are too low.--Gronk Oz (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• comments notes section could use some cleanup--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or redirect Found some sources that are okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or redirect as verifiable in reliable sources. — soupvector (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• merge to Cold compression therapy - this should have really been deleted per A10. Jytdog (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as promotional proprietary neologism. No evidence seen that the Hilotherm GmbH products are significantly different from other devices for controlling skin-surface temperature. Their UK licensee's product page clearly shows they are not aiming for application to one specific body part, rather they're using "cuffs". LeadSongDog come howl! 16:29, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I originally listed this page for deletion as I felt it was all about self promotion. When I went onto Google I saw the majority of initial choices as the promoters of the therapy around thge world. I have not delved deep to see if they coined the term but it's a good guess. As they promote hot and cold therapy it doesn't just fit one but my feeling is that it should be mentioned in therapies for both hot and cold but does not warrant it own page. To do that just validates the therapy providers, and frankly the evidence does not say it's worth the money people would spend. I do accept that it does appear to have some benefit. I still say it should go. HaraldW1954 (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (changed to merge) passes GNG per the WP:MEDRS-compliant source (systematic review indexed in PubMed) in the article (PMID 27516162) plus a second one, PMID 26362489. FourViolas (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:FourViolas You haven't addressed why this specific form of Cold compression therapy should have its own article. Articles like this are generally created by company reps; we generally redirect and merge them to the generic article. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's enough detail in the two reviews for a specialist article too large to fit in cold compression therapy per WP:DUE: in a separate page, we could discuss the facial device's design, its higher cost relative to standard treatment, its higher patient tolerability, hypotheses about its mechanism of action (neutrophil inhibition, vasodilation), and so on. GNG permits this regardless of what we "generally" do in similar cases.

However, the article's history doesn't make me optimistic that anyone is likely to step up and write such an article soon, so I'm okay with a merge for now, without prejudice against thoughtful recreation in accordance with WP:PROMO. FourViolas (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.