Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HTMA Nutritional Balancing

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 merge to Hair analysis (alternative medicine). (non-admin closure) czar · · 17:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HTMA Nutritional Balancing

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

The original intention of this page was to help people understand hTMA as applied to biochemistry guided nutritional therapy. We are not interested in continually battling individuals intent on discrediting this emerging science, which seems to be what it has devolved to. Some of these individuals may be well intentioned in there efforts to enforce Wiki protocol mechanics. Perhaps a day will come when intelligence can also be applied to mechanistic rules and regulations? One can hope. Bmartinsen (talk) 13:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ Merge, per Agricolae below, as this is clearly a bad-faith and WP:POINTy nomination. Bmartinsen recently made huge edits to this article which violated numerous policies, most notably WP:OR and WP:NPOV. A discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard saw him trying to undo others' edits by mislabelling them as vandalism and ultimately blanking said discussion in what I suspect was an act of censorship. I can only imagine that Bmartinsen is throwing the proverbial toys out of the proverbial pram by starting this AfD, where he has given no valid criteria for deletion. — Richard BB 13:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep under criterion 2d: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course". I should note that Bmartinsen (talk · contribs) is the original creator of the article, not just an editor who "made huge edits". I have no prejudice against any editor in good standing renominating this article for deletion under any valid criteria. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have withdrawn the above !vote in light of the comments below, particularly that by Agricolae (talk · contribs). —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kuyabribri - How about "Significant coverage" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline (Sorry for confusion or any hurt feelings. Wiki has so many rules and regulations it is difficult for a noob like me to understand the intricacies and regulatory complexities of the wiki process) Bmartinsen (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of "significant coverage" is a valid rationale for deletion as long as community consensus agrees that this is the case. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see the speedy-keep rationale at all; as best I can tell, Bmartinsen made a strong effort to improve the article, which was mostly poorly sourced promotional material before his edits. The best approach to avoid deletion is actually to provide independent reliable sources demonstrating notability, rather than attacking Bmartinsen. Lacking such sources, the article should be deleted. As a second choice, it might be appropriate to redirect to hair analysis (alternative medicine). MastCell ^Talk 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that there was no article before Bmartinsen's edits; as I said above he was the article creator ([1] [2]). This is what the article looked like before any other editor touched it (save for one minor correction to a file link while it was still in the sandbox). In light of the above referenced WP:FTN discussion the deletion rationale essentially amounts to "if the article doesn't say what I want it to say then it should be deleted". As I said before I have no prejudice against this article getting deleted on valid grounds such as lack of notability. If you still wish to take that position I will withdraw my speedy keep !vote. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:53, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I totally misread the article history. I appreciate your careful explanation. Let me strike my !vote while I re-consider. I apologize for being over-hasty. MastCell ^Talk 18:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to hair analysis (alternative medicine). Having reviewed the article and its history in more detail (thank you KuyaBriBri for correcting me) I think that this topic is not independently notable, but might be discussed briefly in the parent article on this alternative medical practice. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the motivations behind the AfD are questionable, but why not solve the issue now anyhow? Merge to Hair analysis (alternative medicine), which already discusses the technique and is nowhere near long enough to require this subtopic to be spun off. It would even benefit from the addition of the Quackwatch reference currently on this page. Agricolae (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent point — I have amended my !vote above to be a merge. In hindsight, this really is just a sub-topic that could be included as a paragraph in the parent Hair analysis (alternative medicine) article. — Richard BB 08:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

merge -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Hair analysis (alternative medicine) per Agricolae. It's apparent that everything that needs to be said about this technique ought to be subsumed into the larger article. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even after reading Agricolae's notes. Yes the original AFD nomination was in bad faith but after looking for independent reliable secondary sources covering the thing named in the title of the article, "HTMA Nutritional Balancing", there are no sources to be found to support passing WP:GNG. It appears that the general topic of Hair analysis (alternative medicine) is a thing worth its own article, and Quackwatch covers the general topic of Commercial Hair Analysis, but not the particular "HTMA Nutritional Balancing". That particular thing appears to be a name-brand service offered by Analytical Research Laboratories, associated with the now deceased Dr. Paul Eck. All the alternative medicine sites that I found that offer "HTMA Nutritional Balancing" are resellers of that company's product. There are no independent reliable secondary sources that cover that specific product. Result should be delete per WP:42. Zad68 18:25, 7 May 2013 (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.