Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apex effect

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 17:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apex effect

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

The supposed effect sees essentially no mention outside of a small sliver of the alternative medicine communities. There is not really any salvageable material here for a merge. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Thought Field Therapy. The term appears to have been coined by Roger Callahan, but that link redirects to TFT. It is reiterated by enough alternative-type practitioners that I think it should be redirected as a plausible search term rather than deleted. Disclosure: I am responding due to a notification posted at WP:FTN. -Location (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
redirect is a good option for this non notable jargon within a fringe theory. There are no suitable MEDRES sources to establish notability for a stand alone article.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:39, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Available RS are not sufficient to make this a standalone article. DocumentError (talk) 17:12, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero mention in reliable independent secondary sources. Nothing worth saving or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As per Dominus Vobisdu's argument. AlanS^talk 11:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concept has no traction anywhere except one particular tiny fraction of the alt med community. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:55, 3 September 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.