Deletion of Tension myositis syndrome

Comment: Not notable per .  There seems to be a lot of hand waving here trying to establish notability but they don't override policy.  There is zero third party references used, in particular references by |reliable sources seem to be lacking, particularly those that mention the expression outside of an insular fringe community.  At the moment the article reads like it's lifted from Sarno's books (possible ) and generally appears to be "advertising" his information (possible ).  Probably could be merged with Sarno and trimmed to reflect it's relevance
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:COPYVIO||WP:SPAM)

Comment: Since the idea of re-starting the AfD !votes in this section seems to be happening, I'm noting my "keep" !vote here.  I should be clear, I did already vote "keep" near the top of the AfD -  this is not intended as a duplicate vote, I'm just transferring it down to this section for visibility.  My reasons for keep are that the topic satisfies  and , per the 20/20 show, the NY Times mention, the Medscape interview, and more. Now that the article has been re-written, it also meets POV. All the spam-ish links and related text have been removed; and the article has plenty of inline references to reliable sources. Plus, there are 38 or so more books listed on Google Books mentioning the term, that we have not yet explored.  Some of those may be too minor to be helpful, but some of them may turn out to be good sources to continue expanding the article over time after the AfD
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:NPOV)

Comment: I've already !voted to keep the article, but not because it's a valid medical diagnosis.  This is not a debate about how to improve the article or what the article should be about, this is just a debate to find consensus about if the article should be kept or deleted.  Whether it's a "real" medical condition or not doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is:  Is it otable?  Is the notability erifiable?  The answer to both those questions is yes.  There are 45 or so books and a bunch of scholar papers that mention the condition (even if some of those mention it just to debunk it, they are still discussing the topic).   To be clear, I am not at all saying this is a good article.  It's not - it needs to be made NPOV, and that means it needs to include negative as well as positive information, depending on what can be found when the sources are researched.  But it doesn't make sense to delete an article about a topic mentioned in 45 books (that are not self-published) - that's notable and verifiable enough.  When the AfD is closed, or sooner if someone has the time, the article should be gutted  of all none- info and re-written with in-line citations and footnotes
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V||WP:RS)

Comment: Why is it that in AFDs on these particular types of topics lots of  accounts voting keep start to congregate? Is it osmosis? Divine intervention or merely a magnetic navigational sort of thing
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (WP:SPA)

Comment: Given the amount of times "Dr. Sarno claims" shows up in the narrative I'm surmising that he hasn't actually proven anything yet so basically it boils down to |original research really
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: per . The article has many, many sources, but only 3 of them apparently deal with the "syndrome" itself, and two of them don't even use the same name for the syndrome.  Disclosure: I came here because of the |WQA opened on this matter
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE||WP:WQA)

Comment: You wrote... ''the only sources we have are his own books''...  have you taken a look at the 42 books listed on Google Books that include references to that phrase?  Only three of those books were written by Sarno himself.  As I wrote above, the article needs improvement, but 39 books (not including the 3 books written by the person who defined the condition) is a significant set of resources that can be tapped, easily meeting .  You might not agree with what the books state about it, and you may not respect some of the authors, but the books have been published and are valid secondary sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: WP:NEO doesn't apply.  It's a described medical diagnosis of dubious merit, but it |verifiably exists, which is the threshold for notability.  Wikipedia reports |verifiability, not truth, and TMS is a verifiable, though possibly completely imaginary
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:V)

Comment: per nom. It's a  violation at best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: Based on the edits made by Parsifal, I think the discussion on the AFD should be re-started, essentially ignoring the above discussion 'cause it's so long and the page has changed so much.  My reading of the page as it exists now is that it passes  and can stay up, though there are still significant problems.  Congratulations Parsifal for putting in the work to make this enormous discussion obselete :) Who's with me
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: This is a copy of my previous vote down to the "Start over" section.  My reasoning remains very similar as in the follow-up to my previous vote.  The only change is that there are now two more sources (the NY and Seattle newspapers) to support otable and erifiable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: I believe that the subject Tension Myositis Syndrome (TMS) meets the Wikipedia criteria, which require the article to be otable and erifiable.  The notability and verifiability come from a small number of articles in journals, an article in a medical school's proceedings and an article on Prevention magazine's web site.  I just added citations for the medical school and Prevention magazine articles.  Currently, the Wikipedia TMS article only has one reference to a medical journal article on TMS.  This article is in the journal "Evidence Based Integrative Medicine", which is not included in PubMed.  I will work on getting other journal articles added to the footnotes.  Although the TMS treatment has not been studied with controlled clinical trials, such proof is not required for a Wikipedia article.  Also, the topic of TMS is not original research because of the articles mentioned above, as well as the numerous books which mention TMS.  Perhaps individual statements in the Wikipedia TMS article are original research, but that does not affect the proposed article deletion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:V)

Comment: per Fyslee. This just has too many s for me
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:REDFLAG)