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 Keep - the authors have gone to considerable effort to address the problem of lack of reliable sources, and the article as it stands now is quite different from the ones that were deleted previously. The present article still has problems with conflict of interest and so on, but if it is to be deleted it needs to be given another run at AfD. - Richard Cavell 04:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum-Touch[edit]

Article at this title deleted in 2005 via an AFD. Subsequent deletions at this title via PROD (1x) and WP:CSD#G11 (2x). When salting was removed, an article was created in less than 48 hours by a user that may have a conflict of interest. Article speedily deleted, but deletion review felt that since the number of google hits has grown by at least an order of magnitude since the 2005 AFD, there might be independent reliable sources from which to build an article. So it is here for consideration. This is a procedural nomination on my part, I offer no opinion on what to do. If deleted again, I think salting again will be needed. GRBerry 15:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Weak consensus to overturn the deletion mainly on the argument that new Ghits establish WP:N. Nevertheless the first several pages of hits seem to be all self-referential or from blogs, and none from reliable secondary sources. Given the author's COI issues and propensity to recreate I agree with the protection as well. When it can be demonstrated that this can pass WP:ATT and not just WP:N then perhaps the protection can be removed but not now. Arkyan 16:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I assure you that there is no COI as I am not employed by the organization in any way. As for "propensity to recreate", please note that this is my first ever Wikipedia article. I'm seriously hoping that we can find agreement to fix what is wrong with the article rather than delete it. I realize that the page itself has had a rather rocky history. I wish to avoid a repeat of that, as trouble with an article wastes everybody's time. Trane Francks 22:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I apologize if I came across a little harshly, I suppose it was just unfortunate coincidence that the article was re-created by you when it was. As far as wishing to 'fix' the article rather than just get rid of it, it would be possible assuming that WP:ATT can be satisfied. There may be a lot of Google hits for the term, which would establish that "Quantum-Touch" exists, but our attribution policy requires reliable secondary sources for our articles. That means discussion in published medical journals, newspaper articles, or otherwise well-known, peer-reviewed sources. Primary sources - those that are in some way intimately related to the subject at hand - can't be used for information until after attribution is satisfied.
    If you have some information that would meet those requirements than by all means share, and I would be happy to change my mind and support keeping the article. As I stated I did a quick search of my own and could not find any reliable sources for attribution. That does not mean they don't exist, but it means they are not readily available. While it might sound lazy on our part, the burden of proof in finding these sources lies with the contributors, and it becomes your duty to find them. But like I said - if you've got them please let us know. Arkyan 23:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks for the reply. I'll do my very best to flesh out the article in accordance with WP:ATT before this discussion times out. Trane Francks 00:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just to let you know, I've added information regarding Continuing Education credits being given to RNs and CMTs who take Quantum-Touch classes. This can be fleshed further, I believe. Trane Francks 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Note that the way that the article will be kept is with published third-party sources and that the article should be covered or nearly covered by them. —Centrx→talk • 04:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        I appreciate the help here. I'll do what I can to whip it into shape. Thank you. Trane Francks 07:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original deleting administrator, it's the most blatant advertisement I've ever seen. Luigi30 (Taλk) 15:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- at least the silliest.DGG 03:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the most sourced at this rate. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With the help of some great people from the QT message boards, we have been able to stir up secondary sources to help muster up some highly-needed attribution. The sources are found, now it's a matter of utilizing them completely into the actual article. How much time do we have until the article runs out of time to pass wikipedia policies? Antranik 08:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFDs should run for at least five days from the nomination (timestamp above). Any time after that is a matter of luck while the various interested administrators close discussions that they feel comfortable with. Discussions that are short and/or close to unanimous tend to close faster than those with disagreement or extreme length.

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for the guideline on sources considered reliable. Please see Wikipedia:Citing sources for the guideline on how to cite those sources. GRBerry 14:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you GrBerry, that was exactly the info I neeeded.Antranik 14:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to have the article reviewed in its current state to see whether issues still remain that require fixing? Once again, I'd really like to extend my thanks for the help. Trane Francks 02:33, 24 March 2007 (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.