Deletion of Acupuncture point

Comment: One ''possible'' way I see for this article not to be a flat out  is illustrated by an analogy between acupuncture-stimulations-points and coin-heads-tails. For any coin, there is usually a head and a tail. It is difficult to divorce the head from the coin. A coin article is about heads and tails. But a daughter article for coins ''might'' be "heads", discussing historic head designs of coins, and not tail design. Similarly, the acupuncture article is about stimulation of points, so is about both. Ordinarily for any stimulation, there is a point, and for any point, a stimulation. But ''theoretically'', there could be a discussion of points divorced from stimulation. This would argue for a ''third'' article called ''acupuncture stimulation methods''. I think this is a giant stretch, and the most WP:COMMONSENSE attitude is that this article is a pure and simple CFORK, and more, ''paradigmatically'' CFORK, but maybe other editors who have more thoroughly read up the literature, like WLU, have ideas I have not thought of and can bring specificity to what I have called "theoretically". In any event, this whole justification for "keep" discussion is ''theoretical'', as the article as it now stands, or as it ''ever'' stood, even with the NRS and POV content added back in, is ''pure'' CFORK. All there is right now is a ''theoretical potential'' to find detailed content that should ''not'' go in the acupuncture article, but should go in the acupuncture point or theoretical acupuncture stimulation methods articles
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CONTENTFORK)