Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Lightning Process

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The result was Withdrawn by nom: in light of the rewrite this is clearly keep-able. — iridescent 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lightning Process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Procedural nom; I've declined a speedy-delete request on this as it's potentially salvageable, but at the moment it's a complete puff-piece. Bringing it over to see if anyone thinks it's clean-uppable. Procedural nom so I abstain. — iridescent 21:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The following was mistakenly posted by a user on the talk page for this AfD: I'm moving it here, as while I notified the user of their error, they don't seem to have logged in to fix it. - Bilby (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, This is my first attempt at adding something that is missing from the encylopedia, so please excuse any foolish newbie errors. The Lightning Process is a reasonable topic for inclusion in the wikipedia, as it's a subject of much interest to sufferers of m.e, reportedly achieving results that are simply unavailable using standard medical approaches. I feel the piece is unbiased, factually accurate, well referenced beginingBold text for a subject that is just not covered anywhere on wikipedia. I would suggest editing rather than removal, and welcome suggestions. Joanna2008 ``'

• Keep - I've made a shot at rewriting it, and there was a lot of coverage of the process in the media, so I see it as being sufficiently notable to warrant keeping - even though I agree with the nom about the previous state. I've added a few references, but there were many others. I also suspect that having an NPOV article on this topic in Wikipedia would be useful, although that in itself isn't a defense for keeping it. My main concern is that it might be difficult to keep it NPOV (it could easily become a puff piece again, which worries me for an unproven treatment), although this isn't really an issue for AfD. - Bilby (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Properly sourced, when all is said and done.  RGTraynor  15:53, 9 May 2008 (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.