Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paula method

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paula method

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

(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)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep covered in multiple sources reliable sources. The article cites a "systematic review" in a medical journal, which is the type of reference that the highest quality by MEDRS standards. Agree (obviously) with the need to keep eyes on it to prevent COI, non-RS, FRINGE-tone, etc. DMacks (talk) 23:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Said systematic review [1] cites and summarizes seven further papers (selected for being randomized controlled trials of the method) that could be used for sourcing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:47, 6 March 2023 (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.