Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tooth Meridian Chart

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. Not giving much weight to Marvinpan's keep !vote; discussion is pretty much stale at this point. 3 to 1, and policy-based arguments by !delete voters seem like consensus enough for me. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 06:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tooth Meridian Chart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I found this article on fringe medicine in New Pages. I think it's essentially a promotion of this technique, but possibly someone thinks it can be rescued. DGG ( talk ) 02:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep I am the author of this page. A tooth meridian chart is not a technique (therefore it cannot be a promotion of a technique, as suggested), but a tool used in diagnoses for over two thousand years in Chinese medicine and today in holistic dentistry (which has a Wikipedia page currently) as well as chiropractic care and in naturopathy, which is considered a medical discipline. Further, referring to eastern medicine as "fringe medicine" seems to be personal opinion, not grounds for deletion. If the article is lacking something, please let me know and I would be happy to edit, But if Reflexology is considered a valid topic for Wikipedia, I would hope that the dental equivalent would also be consider for inclusion. Youngje13 (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)— Youngje13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The problem is that this stuff is so WP:FRINGE that WP:MEDRS haven't critiqued it. So, we've the choice between uncritical adulation in violation of WP:NPOV, and original research debunking. Since neither is compliant with our content policies, removing the article is the only remaining option. This case is distinguished from reflexology by the fact that the latter has been studied by MEDRS [1], and debunked. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 04:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Calling it "uncritical adulation" is a far stretch, as I am neither advocating nor promoting it, simply writing about a tool used for thousands of years. It can be edited to include cited criticisms if it is in violation of WP:NPOV. However, I do not believe it is considered original research, as I have cited multiple published books and a medical journal. If it is still in violation, can someone please further explain, as I would like to avoid that issue in the future and/or may be able to edit this article to solve that issue if it indeed exists. As for WP:MEDRS, I don't believe it applies as a tooth chart is neither a healing modality nor a medical discipline, but a physical map of body parts. Deleting this page does not remove the fact that these charts exist, are utilized in multiple disciplines, and are searched for online. A neutral article on the topic needs to be created. Deleting it would be the equivalent of Wikipedia denying its existence. If the article needs to be edit to be in compliance, then I encourage others to do just that, but deleting the page will just force people to other resources for information on meridian charts, which will most likely not provide the neutral point of view you are seeking.Youngje13 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Youngje, I am striking out the word "keep" at the start of this comment and one below. You can comment as much as you like, but you only get to "vote" (keep or delete) once. Your later comments can simply be indented under the comment you are replying to, without a bold "vote" to begin your input. --MelanieN (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Alessandra Napolitano explained it better than I can. Reliable sources are a good indication of notability, and I was unable to find a WP:MEDRS. Wasbeer 04:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThank you. I guess I assumed that the medical journals and books referenced were okay (Meinig was a founding member of the American Association of Endodontists, for example). I have since edited the article to cite more sources (both pro and con) including university studies. I still don't understand why an object is subjected to WP:MEDRS as it isn't a medical discipline, modality, or type of treatment. That being said, dental meridians come up repeatedly in a pubmed search, some results of which I have cited. If the sources cited and the research provided are not enough, then leave the article and request more research (as many articles currently do) to allow for further edits. Deleting it doesn't change the fact that these charts (WP:FRINGE or not) exist, are used in Alternative medicine, and are being searched for online. Deleting the page doesn't seem to accomplish anything other than attempting to deny it's existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Youngje13 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I exist. If someone wanted proof of my existence it would not be hard to find a couple of reliable sources about me (I've been on the local news for example). There is no article in Wikipedia about me. Is Wikipedia denying my existence? We have a page (Wikipedia:Notability) that tries to explain why some things are included in Wikipedia, and others are not, but I admit it is far from perfect. Maybe the charts are not notable, but holistic dentistry is. Wasbeer 23:26, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Point well made (and well taken) about existence. My apologies for that. And thank you for the article on Wikipedia:Notability, as that helped explain it. If you read my edited article, you will see that I have referenced reliable sources that deny the merit of the meridians based on university studies, so I believe it does meet the notability requirement. Further, I am trying to find the research done by Dr. Thomas Rau, the reputable and notable medical director of the Paracelsus Klinik, which he used in developing the modern version of the chart. Unfortunately, I don't have access to all the foreign journal articles I would like, so for the time being, the sources cited and referenced in the article will hopefully suffice as to proving its notability. The original complaints were that it was in violation of WP:NPOV and original research, neither of which I believe it violates. Further, I have cited sources from WP:MEDRS. Not sure how many more things it can be denied for, but I hope that the hot button the topic has obviously struck will be further proof that it is a notable topic worthy of inclusion (if it wasn't notable, no one would care, right? ) Youngje13 (talk) 03:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep The article cites noted sources, including criticisms,from reputable institutions and publications. Therefore, it does not seem to violate WP:NPOV, original research, or WP:MEDRS. It appears notable as independent studies have been done compilation reviews on the subject (plus, the all-important QuackWatch lists it, so it does have written detractors). I didn't read the original versions mentioned, but I don't see any violations in the version that is up now. Marvinpan (talk) 15:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC) — Marvinpan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Actually, nccam.nih.gov and the British dental journal and Oral diseases do not contain the words "tooth" or "meridian" or "chart" in the abstract. I do not have access to the full text unfortunately. @Youngje13: Would you be so kind to send them to me? Holistic dentistry is notable, the charts are not imho. The article contains dangerous nonsense, for instance: "Recent studies involving 60 women with breast cancer showed 57 of these women had a root canal on a tooth related to the breast meridian."<ref>{{cite book|last=Ewing|first=Dr. Dawn|title=Let the Tooth Be Known|year=1998|publisher=Holistic Health Alternatives|isbn=0-9669404-1-5|pages=40}}</ref>"
  This belief is quite old. Weston A. Price, D.D.S. (1870-1948), performed poorly designed studies that led him to conclude that teeth treated with root canal therapy leaked bacteria or bacterial toxins into the body, causing arthritis and many other diseases. This "focal infection" theory led to needless extraction of millions of endodontically treated teeth until well-designed studies, conducted during the 1930s, demonstrated that the theory was not valid. (Easlick K. An evaluation of the effect of dental foci of infection on health. Journal of the American Dental Association 42:615-97, 1951. & Grossman L. Pulpless teeth and focal infection. Journal of Endodontics 8:S18-S24, 1982.). Quackwatch link. Wasbeer 14:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At what point did this article become about focal infection theory? You can argue the merits of Focal infection theory at the appropriate page (as well as the research validity of Quack Watch). I understand that your "honest opinion" doesn't think the topic is notable. I obviously disagree and believe that this is a worthwhile topic and that the research should stand on its own. I also have emails into Dr. Thomas Rau and Dr. Klinghardt to provide more sources for me, but it obviously won't matter to some people. I have read the requirements to keep an article on Wikipedia. As I have shown already, this article meets and exceeds all those requirements... More so than many other articles currently listed, yet this article is marked for deletion. No amount of sources or research will change our mind about the fact that it clearly meets all Wikipedia requirements, even if you disagree with the validity of the topic.Youngje13 (talk) 02:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link to Thomas Rau. A glance at that article shows that it may need to be evaluated for deletion as well. It contains absolutely no reference links and thus is an "unreferenced biography of a living person"; such articles are supposed to be tagged so that they either get references added or get deleted. There are some external links provided at that article, but all of them are self-referential to Thomas Rau himself and thus are not acceptable as "independent reliable sources" per Wikipedia requirements. I am tagging it right now. --MelanieN (talk) 03:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you send me the full text of the references via email? At the moment the article does not meet all Wikipedia requirements (e.g. notability = significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). If you want to use references that confirm "Tooth Meridian Charts" are notable I expect them to contain the words "Tooth Meridian Chart". Wasbeer 17:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Since there's an outstanding request for more information, let's relist this and see if it's provided.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 23:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet received an email; but if I do I will post a comment here. Wasbeer 14:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked my inbox and spamfolder, and I still have not received the information I was asking for. Youngje13's most recent edit is from 24 November 2011. Wasbeer 00:35, 7 December 2011 (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.