Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somatic dysfunction

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. Tone 13:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Somatic dysfunction (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)

A dictionary definition of a fictional concept. There are no WP:MEDRS for this because it doesn't exist. Guy (Help!) 11:25, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This term is a synonym for the "osteopathic lesion" proposed by A.T. Still, as we already explain in our Osteopathic manipulation article. It is a bogus concept[1] and not discussed outside the fringe/in-universe world of osteopathic publication, or recognized in legitimate medicine. Any mention of this topic (for example from the linked Snyder piece) would be better incorporated into Osteopathic manipulation per WP:NOPAGE. Having a stand-alone article in its current state is a failure of NPOV as it legitimizises a pseudoscience. Alexbrn (talk) 15:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG:If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Neither the requirement for significant coverage, nor the requirement for secondary sources are met. The bulk of the article comprises unsourced or questionably sourced text, which if removed, would leave nothing of any encyclopedic value. --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this is a glossary entry, not an encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per above 3 editors rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2018 (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.