Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander technique

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 keep. Nominator withdrew (non-admin closure) Derild 49 21 ☼ 18:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander technique

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

I'm hesitant to AfD this, but the article is, simply put, borderline gibberish and utterly riddled with peacock terms. There's much talk, but virtually no real content whatsoever with regards to the actual "technique" itself, and would seem to require a complete rewrite to make any form of encyclopedic sense. Someone on the talk page summed it up perfectly around 8-9 months ago:

Came looking for a definition of Alexander Technique. Read the whole article. Could not find any precise, specific, clear definition with details of the technique's methodology, principles and explanation of core concepts. The article seems written by some member of a sect, really. If there is any logic to it, it is only self-sustaining logic, i.e. a system composed of interlinked concepts, with no function other than to defend itself. Here's a example from the article:
"Global concepts such as "Psycho-physical Unity" and "Use" describe how thinking strategies and attention work together during preparation for action. They connote the general sequence of how intention joins together with execution to directly affect the perception of events and the outcome of intended results."
And ? How are those concepts used in applying Alexander Technique ? What is their influence on it ? How is the technique actually *used* ? Either Alexander Technique is an obvious sham, either the presented concepts in the article are of such abstraction that the article is utterly useless for anyone but a practitioner of the technique. Either way, the article needs a complete rewrite. 206.248.191.158 (talk) 22:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 20:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong keep: This probably the most bizarre AFD i have ever seen. Unlike most alternative therapies, there are actually some rigourous bits of research supporting its effectiveness. It is a notable, well established and well known alternative therapy and fully deserves being an article. I disagree that the article is fundamentally in a bad state but even if it was, that is no grounds for an AFD.--Penbat (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I was reticent to bring it to AfD, but the way I see it, it's in a fundamentally poor state and has been, without change, for many many months if not years. For that reason, perhaps this mess should be removed until someone writes a coherent and meaningful article on the technique. As it stands, virtually no concrete information is provided on it, instead it's just a collection of shifty and evasive rubbish. I'm not sure why you felt the need to prefix your entry with extremely strong, though... Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 21:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If 206.248.191.158 felt so strongly about problems with the article, instead of just making a vague mega-whinge, he should have been much more specific in his comments, including giving examples, and actually done some work to improve it.--Penbat (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... instead of making uncivil comments towards other editors, perhaps you should accept that not every editor here has the time to fundamentally rewrite articles, or in this broken case write one from scratch. A simple read through one or two paragraphs of the article would be enough for most reasonable people to form their own conclusions, rather than having every little detail handed to them on a platter. Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 23:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If I am not reading your argument right you want it deleted because it is badly written? WP:UGLY. Besides that this is definitely notable with plenty of sources out there. [1] [2] Derild 49 21 ☼ 21:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just badly written, it says virtually nothing despite having voluminous amounts of text. If there's a better method for dealing with this ("rewrite it" isn't helpful and not my area of involvement) then I'll gladly just self-close this nomination. But if you can't see that it goes way beyond simply not being pretty, then wow. I never said it was non-notable, however, but the article most certainly does not make it clear why it's notable or even what the technique actually involves! Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 22:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

<ec>I can see that it is clearly very badly written, but that is just not a reason for deletion. Of course in this case it may be possible to WP:IAR if you wish. In response to notability, I never meant to suggest that you felt it was NN, just that notability wouldn't be a reason for deletion. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:07, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense do you mean IAR with regards to it? I mean, it's simply been so long in the same atrocious state that I doubt it's going to be fixed up anytime soon, and fixing it up would probably require all but starting from scratch on it. So while I'm not a deletionist by any means, is there really any good reason to keep the thing floating on Wikipedia when it provides little to no informational service? Of course, I defer to your experience here and am all ears. Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 22:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there is no "valid" reason to delete right now in accordance to Wikipedia policies. However, if you strongly feel on your position that the article is just too badly written, you may use IAR as a reason to delete as you are ignoring WP:UGLY. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well i dont agree that it is "clearly very badly written" or even badly written. Room for improvement - yes - but that applies to many Wiki articles. Anyway the place for this discussion is the talk page and this AFD is a joke. --Penbat (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Penbat... what, just what? Not a single person deigned to respond to previously-raised concerns on the talk page, so I brought the matter the only other place I knew of; here. As for not seeing what's wrong with the article, I've explained it perfectly well. The article is nothing but hot air and peacock terms. Not a single coherent or logical definition of the subject matter is ever given. The quotation I provided says it all, and that's pretty much all that can be said about it, I guess. I find it strange that this garbage is being defended, but I guess if that turns out to be the consensus after more discussion, hopefully involving less dismissal and WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS variations, I'll defer to it. Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 22:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Derild4921, WP:IAR does not apply to WP:UGLY because Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay, not a guideline (and therefore opinion and nothing like an accepted rule). --195.14.196.124 (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Ah I understand, thanks for the explanation. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd add that the article falls perilously close to being covered under WP:NONSENSE, but anyway, I shall just wait for other users' input. Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 22:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? While there may be a lot of information needing and information needing to be clarified the article does not meet any of the two requirements. Derild 49 21 ☼ 22:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me to fall under the second point, due to its extensive use of leading/distraction fallacy, insomuch as dressing up trivial statements to make it seem like something important is being said or described. Derailment, as is linked to in that page, essentially. Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 22:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mu view is the article is badly written in terms of sourcing and also in comprehesiveness, but does not need to be deleted. Can yo provide examples where the text patent nonsense? Derild 49 21 ☼ 23:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to give specific, isolated examples, because the entire article is comprised of loosely-connected and often mutually-irrelevant statements and vague observations. My main concern with it is that there is actually no grounding definition of the Alexander technique, nothing is here to identify it as a coherent structure, and that's where for me the entire article is reduced to a nonsensical and vague rambling. Perhaps that's a flaw in the "technique" itself; I wouldn't be surprised if it were, given its pseudo-medicinal status, but surely an encyclopedic article on it should be either calling it out on this or actually describing what it is, not reading like a vague handbook written by its proponents? Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 00:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly supported by notable WP:RS references in the article. However, there is Alexander technique jargon, peacock tems and unsupported material that needs work. IMO the proper way to address this is to change the wording to clearly supported material from RS and tag the other issues in the article that editors object to. Ward20 (talk) 02:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I prefer starting from crap over starting from nothing. --Kvng (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the consensus so far, and I'll just let this run its course now, but a final point: everyone says they would do this that or the other, but who is going to rewrite this? I strongly suspect that much admonishment will continue here, but when all is said and done, everyone will walk away and nothing will be done about the article. Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 16:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:09, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retract nomination Since one editor with some clue as to what the article is trying to say has actually bothered to offer to improve the article, I'm retracting this nomination and would appreciate it if someone closed the AfD. Thanks. Delta Trine ^{Συζήτηση} 18:38, 29 September 2010 (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.