Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Physiospect

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. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Physiospect

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

Borderline spam that fails WP:N. Complete lack of reliable sources. Zero PubMed hits, zero Scholar hits, zero Google news hits, one unrelated Google books hit, no websites in Google that would be reliable sources for a medical article. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Tim Vickers (talk) 23:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertisement for a non-notable device with no reliable sources. Alison22 (talk) 01:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Prodded this a while back, but forgot to check in with it - my bad. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I started reading this with interest, until I realised the complete lack of reliable references. Once these guys publish in a mainstream journal, the article can come back. GyroMagician (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have read with interest the comments calling for Delete but would just like to point out that Physiospect is certainly not fake. I and other members of my family have personally experienced the system in Belgium. It is used by several practitioners in Continental Europe, particularly in France, apparently quite often with positive results. I certainly would not have written the article if I had not had evidence of the existence of the system. I would invite interested parties to take a closer look at some of the websites documenting the system. For example, the information at Physiospect-002 corresponds very closely to the system I have seen in operation. There are also several interesting sites in French, e.g the ones from Eric Fleury, or Pysioscan, the Swiss distributor. There is a French site [1] listing some 25 therapists using the system. I have also seen a number of articles on the system in the French Belgian press although these do not seem to be accessible on the Web. The problem with some of these "alternative" developments is that they often attract hostile reactions from the established medical community. But to be as objective as possible, I have also found sites which are quite critical of Physiospect, for example [2]. However, as the article does not seem to have attracted very much interest, it is perhaps not worthwhile researching any further. If I am the only one interested in keeping it, then I should bow to my peers. Ipigott (talk) 10:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - I am concerned that this article is quite simply an advertisement for a piece of non-notable equipment. Only a handful or places use this and its still described as experimental. I have not been able to find any information regarding its trials, development history, how its changing the industry, and generally found very little academic information about it from an independent and credible third party. Mkdw ^talk 22:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete :used by several" practitioners = not notable. There needs to be some actual RSs, not the sort of websites with advertising and reader comments that we see here. DGG ( talk ) 02:43, 31 December 2009 (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.