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. I'm not redirecting, since there doesn't appear to be any mention of myofascial meridians (or of connective tissue planes) in the suggested target article. There is, however, nothing stopping anyone from introducing such a mention there (as long as it isn't copied without attribution from this article) and creating a redirect at this title. Deor (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myofascial meridians[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nomination from QuackGuru.

Comment Please note that this article was part of an edit war/content dispute prior to being being fully page protected for a month. The longer version with more context and evidence for notability can be found here. - Technophant (talk) 09:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - meets GNG. Has clinical significance as a proposed physical correlation for acupuncture meridians and as a treatment for shoulder pain. While the term "myofascial meridians" is not popular among researches, "connective tissue planes" is. The textbook, which is published by Elsevier Health Sciences (the most respected name in health information sciences), is very popular among physical therapists and massage therapists and its concepts are frequently used to enhance therapeutic techniques. - Technophant (talk) 09:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as a PT I'm familiar with the personal opinions included as "pearls" (of crap) by the authors (with poor crap detectors) of textbooks, sometimes positing hypothetical ideas as if they were fact, and some PTs fall for them, as if they were firmly established scientific fact, and become fans of the guru author. This is far from a reliable source for medical knowledge. While much of it might be fine information and helpful in practice, such gems of speculation should not be swallowed whole. It's much better to use properly performed scientific reviews of the mainstream literature. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question - if you support it being kept, why did you nominate it for deletion? Why shouldn't this be closed as speedy keep? St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, worked it out. You really should have waited for the nominator to complete the nomination before responding. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meridian_(Chinese_medicine) as it is not notable as a stand alone article. See ref for support [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also discussed here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DJ, non notable nonsense. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Meridian (Chinese medicine). The article is obviously not notable as an individual article. There is limited coverage is secondary sources for this fringe view. QuackGuru (talk) 17:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Technophant -A1candidate (talk) 17:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Meridian_(Chinese_medicine) because I cannot find any independent sources which which actually distinguish between the two kinds of meridians. jps (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable enough for an article. This fringe idea doesn't need to be advertised by Wikipedia, unless it gains sufficient notability, either as a recognized and noticed form of pseudoscientific piffle, or becomes a scientifically confirmed addition to our medical knowledge base. Either way, notability is currently insufficient. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meridian (Chinese medicine) as possible search term. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Meridian_(Chinese_medicine) - it's a minor detail within a fringe topic. --Salimfadhley (talk) 21:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone invented a new way to cure medical problems, and they published a book, and they run a course. That's great, but there are no secondary sources independent of the subject that show notability, and Wikipedia should not be used for promotions, particularly for promotions based on techno-babble. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Meridian (Chinese medicine) WegianWarrior (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable enough to warrant a separate article, doesn't really belong in the Meridians article because of WP:FRINGE. Karzelek (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2014 (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.