Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lifespan Integration

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. WP:SNOW applies. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan Integration

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable therapeutic method: most of what I could find are promotional sites or at best passing mentions. The article also reads in a somewhat promotional tone, and in any case the article seems to reek of woo. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteAlso having trouble finding any RS, a couple of "also therapy" articles but not a lot.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Slater. The article lead appears to be a direct re-write of http://lifespanintegration.com. While that's not plagiarism, it's suggestive of an article author with a COI of some sort. There seems to be little to no independent coverage of this method, and a good chunk of relevant Google Scholar hits are from that website, as well (with no citations, of course). The rest of the (very few) hits all seem to be unpublished pdfs, hosted on university websites. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per oh my god do I really have to give a justification again so much woo so much very much woo I can't take it any more. Famousdog (woof)(grrr) 13:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment (and username) made me think of Wow, much fringe, very woo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Delete. According to the author's talkpage, articles on the subject were rejected as drafts. That this was created anyway seems to me to be a problem with closing the loop on situations where AfC is doing a good job filtering problematic content. Of course, I cannot see the deleted content, but I am going to assume it is largely the same. If an admin wants to disabuse me of this prejudice, I am happy to listen. jps (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. There is nothing on pubmed[1]. What is on google books is not sufficient. Looks like promotion. No disclosure by the involved editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

delete yep, an advertisement. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is all promotional. Natureium (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:FRINGE - all promo sources, no WP:RS, nothing but promo sites and woo-waffle on Google. (love that term!) Nick Moyes (talk) 01:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not sure if I should say this since I'm the nominator, but it seems pretty snowy here. Time to cut the article's lifespan? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:17, 24 January 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.