Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula method

Paula method

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Paula method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence of any notability. Just one person's theory with no supporting evidence. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   20:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
• Keep Both the purported bio-mechanical effect and the efficacy of the intervention have been studied:

• Bø, Kari; Hilde, Gunvor; Stær-Jensen, Jette; Brækken, Ingeborg Hoff (2011-06-01). "Can the Paula method facilitate co-contraction of the pelvic floor muscles? A 4D ultrasound study". International Urogynecology Journal. 22 (6): 671–676. doi:10.1007/s00192-010-1317-8. ISSN 1433-3023.
• Resende, Ana Paula M.; Zanetti, Míriam R. D.; Petricelli, Carla D.; Castro, Rodrigo A.; Alexandre, Sandra M.; Nakamura, Mary U. (2011-06-01). "Effects of the Paula method in electromyographic activation of the pelvic floor: a comparative study". International Urogynecology Journal. 22 (6): 677–680. doi:10.1007/s00192-010-1331-x. ISSN 1433-3023.
• Bø, Kari; Herbert, Robert D. (2013-09-01). "There is not yet strong evidence that exercise regimens other than pelvic floor muscle training can reduce stress urinary incontinence in women: a systematic review". Journal of Physiotherapy. 59 (3): 159–168. doi:10.1016/S1836-9553(13)70180-2. ISSN 1836-9553.

Obviously we should not let the article become pseudoscientific, as has happened in the past, but there's enough WP:MEDRS coverage that it's appropriate to have an article on the topic. Jfire (talk) 22:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2023 (UTC)