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 of the debate was Keep - Richardcavell 23:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NAET[edit]

AfD: WP:SPAM / WP:VAIN / WP:CITE

I am also nominating the following related page: Devi Nambudripad --Monotonehell 23:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The technique turns up many google hits, but they have a wiff of self-promotion and I can't find any mention outside the alt medicine community. JoshuaZ 00:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a real treatment and there are many mainstream press accounts available, both pro and con. It is essential that a reference work contain information on medical treatments, even when they are "alternative". --JJay 01:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Devi Nambudripad if there is no notable information about her aside from her invention of NAET. As for NAET itself, keep and improve. From reading on the subject [1], it seems that this alergy treatment is regarded as quack medicine ... but that doesn't mean it isn't notable. BigDT 03:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have heard fabulous things about this treatment. It falls under the naturopathy techniques of addressing allergies. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.243.47 (talk • contribs)

But are there any scholarly references that can be cited for it? WP:CITE --Monotonehell 14:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many. This might be a good start [2]. Google scholar gives roughly 35 hits with a restricted search [3]. Google books maybe 40 [4]. As I previously mentioned, there are also tons of accounts in newspapers and the mainstream press. --JJay 18:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd support a merge and rewite if any sources can be found. (But I won't vote since I raised the AfD) --Monotonehell 14:42, 9 June 2006 (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.