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.  Sandstein  18:14, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Polarity therapy[edit]

Polarity therapy (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)

Non notable topic - appears to be a minor variant of energy medicine with an infusion of Ayurvedism and taoism.

If you read through the "Beliefs" section you will find that there's nothing at all which distinguishes this practice from the main article on energy medicine. Energy medicine is itself inseparable from mystical and esoteric belief systems.

I'd normally propose a merge, however I cannot imagine this article adding up to more than a couple of sentences to distinguish it from plain old energy-medicine. That's why I'm proposing a deletion. Salimfadhley (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leaning toward delete. Even for fringe science, this seems pretty unsupported. There are a few, minimally cited references to it at Google Scholar. There are a few articles in minor news publications, about half of which are promotional or opinion pieces (letters to the editor etc.) It does get a mention at the website of the American Cancer Society, which seems to regard it as worthless but harmless. I wouldn't object to a redirect to a related fringe-science topic such as Energy medicine. --MelanieN (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with energy medicine is that there are as many variants as there are proponents. I ask myself if there is anything objectively different about Polarity therapy when compared with other kinds of energy medicine. I could find no substantial difference. This article seems to emphasize certain eastern esoteric concepts, however try to find me a single western energy medicine proponent that does not dabble in eastern esoterica. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; it's practically impossible to write a neutral article on something which is only really covered by a small number of deeply-fringe sources. The mainstream hasn't bothered with it. (Compare to, say Homeopathy, where there's a wide range of both "pro" and "skeptic" sources) bobrayner (talk) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as meeting our basic standards; merely because its alternative medicine is certainly not a reason; there must be hundreds of thousands of articles on less notable subjects. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• From your inspection of the sources, could you kindly explain to me what distinguishes polarity therapy from the regular kinds of energy medicine? Which of the sources currently referenced would you say is the strongest. I would be delighted to re-inspect that source and reevaluate my vote. --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think my argument is that the topic itself is notable. Its hard to comment on the refs as only 2 are online and the others are to books I dont have access to. We might do well instead to merge Randolph Stone into this article as an alternative way of recovering ti as his notability is as the founder of Polarity Therapy. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I second Salimfadhley's comments. Sorry, but your saying the topic is notable does not make it so. (I'm bolding this part of my comment since it appears from comments below that SqueakBox did not notice it.) There has to be significant recognition of the field if it is to be accepted for an article here, and I couldn't find any such recognition. I also can't tell, from the article, how this practice differs from any of the other "energy therapies" that claim to manipulate a person's energy field. If you'll pardon my saying so, same s---, different name. --MelanieN (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • Please be civil, Melainie, it doesnt take a lot of effort. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:16, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. And since you brought up Randolph Stone, I think someone might want to look into his notability as well. --MelanieN (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed your suggestion. Randolph Stone has been nominated for deletion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think more than ever now we should keep this article and merge and redirect the Stone article into it. I have no doubt about the notability of the subject, polarity therapy is intimately entwined with Stone and I believe we have enough content from both articles to make one good article on this notable subject. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think this article is indicative of it being a notable complementary therapy. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 23:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it gets mentioned in a listing by The Observer, which is a Reliable Source; it is listed there along with 80 other complementary therapies. The Cancer Society also gives it a mention, as I showed above. This might be enough to support a redirect to Energy therapy instead of outright deletion. It is certainly nowhere near enough for a standalone article, which requires significant coverage by multiple independent reliable sources. --MelanieN (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: seems like plenty of notoriety but little actual nobility. Moreschi (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I won't comment on the other sources, but concerning the Observer - a brief mention in a listing doesn't make something notable. If it did, we'd have articles on every business in the Yellow Pages and every item of Ikea furniture. Sources like that can be useful for WP:V purposes, but they don't help much with WP:N. bobrayner (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2012 (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.