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. Bishonen | talk 11:32, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional acupuncture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:SYN, WP:PROFRINGE, lack of WP:MEDRS and (in particular) excessive reliance on studies conducted in Korea and China, both of which have a long-term problem with pseudoscience (China, especially, produces exactly zero negative results on studies of woo). This may be a notable topic, but it is a WP:TNT job if so. Guy (help!) 11:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The first citation is not MEDRS, and the article falls apart once that is removed, with it's associated nonsense. Remove all the meaningless crappy language (encyclopeadic writing ought to make sense) and nothing remains. An article could probably be cobbled together, but this isn't it. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:51, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seems like a POV content fork of Accupuncture. Simonm223 (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's OK to have articles about pseudoscience, but they have to be articles about notable pseudoscience, which this isn't. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Terrible article. scope_creep^Talk 19:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "make the therapeutic remedy due to the patient's unique constitution, which contains the specific way his or her organs affect health, living habits, how he or she looks and behaves" is a typical "holistic approach" claim that does not distinguish this particular variant from acupuncture and alternative medicine in general. The particular mataphysics of many schools can vary but there's no indication that this particular variant is notable enough to have its article. "Constitutional energy traits" are like other meridians, nadis, etc... —PaleoNeonate – 16:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note that you are cleaning up after a May 2019 school project.
  • User:Hazyzinc/OLES2129
  • Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard/Archive 18#OLES2129
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Use of wormwood recreations
  • Draft:Integrating modern technology with traditional Chinese medicine
• Uncle G (talk) 12:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• By the way, the "fork" of acupuncture was made about 15 centuries ago, when Chinese acupunture was imported into Korea. There are different vaguely identified schools of acupunture, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, and so forth. This article is purportedly about Korean acupunture. Interestingly, Micozzi 2010, p. 404 says that although these qualifiers "appear to add meaning" they "often obscure as much as clarify". Xe does discuss some of the schools further, including the more specifically named Korean constititional acupuncture and Korean hand therapy on Micozzi 2010, p. 425, which our acupunture article probably should at least mention the existence of, but does not. Also note that we already had Sasang constitutional medicine. Uncle G (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Micozzi, Marc S. (2010). Fundamentals of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (4th ed.). Elsevier Health Sciences. ISBN 9781437727050.
• Delete per the nomination and the delete !votes above. It's the holistic course of action, best suited to the article's unique constitution. XOR'easter (talk) 01:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: this article is made by newbie, so there are some problems. But we can improve this article with other users at any time! --Garam (talk) 10:50, 17 September 2019 (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.