Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trigenics

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trigenics

[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)

Medical article, but sources are either first-party sources or from chiropractic journals that do not pass WP:MEDRS -- The Anome (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are zero pubmed indexed reveiws on the topic. Combine that with the concerns above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per MEDRS issues. I would consider changing this determination if it were to be shown as notable for quackery. N.b. it is found in The Happy Body: Getting to the Root of Your Fitness, Health and Productivity published by vanity press Morgan James Publishing, which does not help notability claim. ☆ Bri (talk) 14:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's been tagged for a long time, but still lacks enough independent RS to justify existence. Even as a fringe or quackery type subject it would need that. MEDRS are not a requirement for existence here, but only for medical claims, so that issue could be resolved by proper wording, but we would still need those independent sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article on a health treatment with no reliable secondary sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.--Pontificalibus 12:45, 2 February 2020 (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.