Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainspotting (2nd nomination)

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 Procedural Close. The page had been speedied by RHaworth. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 03:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brainspotting

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

This is a non-notable piece of promotional FRINGE that should have been speedied but that option was cut off. Now we have to waste time on a deletion discussion. There are no more reliable sources about this now than there was when we deleted this back in 2009. Jytdog (talk) 01:48, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jytdog (talk) 01:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are no more reliable sources about this now than there was when we deleted this back in 2009 Are there?: 1, 2, 3. Adam9007 (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trademark dispute and two shit sources. Not even close. This is an encyclopedia not another piece of trash in the blogosphere. This page is raw abuse of WIkipedia to promote FRINGE quackery. Jytdog (talk) 01:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the suspicion of pseudoscience related to the article, it does not appear that "brainspotting" is even necessarily it's own subject; it seems to be more like a slang term used in conjunction with Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing therapy (EMDR). I too am inclined towards supporting deletion. Scriblerian1 (talk) 02:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete One big piece of WP:NOT cut down to look like an acceptable stub. Before the CSD was removed and the article gutted, I thought it was hopelessly OR, a rambling essay, even fringe fluff. It was promotional in a subtle sort of way that did not trigger the immediate, visceral response G11 articles usually evoke in me. If I'd just honored the WP:CSD#G11 when I had the chance, we would not be here, but I held back. A link to a Lawyers-are-us site & 2 local news fluff pieces does not, as Jytdog put, show an improvement in sourcing Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As offputting as the name may be, Brainspotting is an important new treatment modality for PTSD. It is not EMDR, although it seems to work by a similar mechanism...to the extent that we actually understand the mechanism of EMDR, that is. I hold a PhD in Psychiatric Rehabilitation, and have personally benefited from both EMDR and (particularly) Brainspotting, so I'm speaking from at least some foundation. I have no conflicts of interest: I don't provide psychotherapy or any other PTSD treatment, don't personally know the gentleman who developed Brainspotting, don't have any financial stake in any of this, etc. I will try to improve the post in the near future, but in the meantime I really hope it won't be deleted. --Aaronjlevitt (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC) Here's at least one article (2013) in Medical Hypotheses, a reasonably well-respected journal: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2013.03.005[reply]

@Aaronjlevitt:Welcome to Wikipedia! Could you put it in the reference section of the article? use template:citewebThanks.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No - Medical Hypothesis is a low quality ref, full of speculation, as it name communicates. Its unreliability has been discussed many times at WT:MED -- see the several discussions here) And the article already bases as much content as is OK using that source. We source content about health to literature reviews in high quality journals as described in WP:MEDRS. There are no such sources about this. Jytdog (talk) 18:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete purely promotional in nature. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2017 (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.