Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pressure point

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. Pretty clearly a notable topic, and the "delete" !votes have not established that the quality is so hopeless that there's nothing worth salvaging in its current state. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pressure point

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

Page is hopeless collection of WP:OR and content based on bad sources. There may be an encyclopedia article here but this is not even close to it. Needs TNT. Jytdog (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete is WP:OR--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because WP:Deletion is not cleanup. There are prior versions of the article that spend more time talking about the first-aid meaning of the term (that's "pressure point" as in "spots where mainstream evidence-based medical practitioners press to keep someone from bleeding out all over the carpet") than the altmed uses.[1] Alternatively, if your interests run less towards the risks of heavy machinery and more towards pop culture, you could probably build an entire article about the movie trope (there's already one about the Vulcan nerve pinch, which is probably the most well-known fictional pressure point). There is no doubt that this is a notable topic (possibly three of them: first aid + acupuncture-related points + martial arts in pop culture). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

things like page, are what TNT is for. This is not a WP article. Deleting this mess will not stop anybody from recreating a decent article. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant line in WP:TNT is this: "if the article's content is useless (including all the versions in history)" (emphasis added). Even if you believe that the current version is useless, the claim that all the version in history are also useless is demonstrably untrue, as I have linked to an earlier version that is not useless. (In fact, it may be too useful, as it veers slightly into how-to territory.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the version you linked to is useless; it is entirely unsourced (or "cites" unreliable links) and would have to be completely checked against reliable sources; it is not a valid starting point for anything. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because having an empty article isn't good. The article can be recreated if someone takes the time to research it properly and use proper sources. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 01:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is an important term. AFD is not for clean-up. Any call for wp:TNT acknowledges the validity of the topic and is wp:disruptive, should cause an automatic closure of the AFD with a Speedy Keep decision. --do ncr am 02:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Peter Rehse (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Acknowledge that the article is weak and disagree that calling for WP:TNT is disruptive and not a valid reason. However, I think the topic is notable and is improvable from its current form.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that an effort to clean-up is underway. My personal feeling is that pressure point fighting is a joke but that pressure points do exist - I enjoy using them myself. I hope the clean-up (and this AfD) don't reflect strong opinions one way or the other.Peter Rehse (talk) 11:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just disqualified your vote. That you believe they exist or not is entirely irrelevant. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all - my vote was based on the opinion that the article was recoverable and a notable topic. My qualification was only a hope that the clean-up is not colored by opinion.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the weight of your vote is not measured by the strength of your opinion, but how it relates to reliable sources. What you made clear is that your vote is not at all reliant on sources, but on your personal opinion and anecdote. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:13, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "clean-up is underway", unless we're counting CFCF blanking almost half the sentences, including sentences that he knows to be accurate and verifiable (e.g., "The brain is a sensitive organ which floats in cerebrospinal fluid") as "clean up".

I think that it would be helpful to decide whether this needs to be WP:SPLIT. The recent focus for the article has been martial arts, but that's not the only kind of pressure point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While verifiable, there is no indication that it is at all relevant or related to the topic at hand. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think there's something notable here, between the cultural and even quasi-scientific coverage, and that the medical and martial arts contexts can coexist. See here.[[2]] I also looked at the older info that was blanked and think it should have stayed templated for citation needed rather than blanked.Timtempleton (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: - Original closure was reverted. Leaving unclosed for someone else to close this AfD as they determine consensus. -- Dane ^talk 08:40, 7 January 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.