Deletion of Koren Specific Technique

Comment: This article has been around since 2015 and is still a . This may suggest that there is a lack of eliable sources. While , keep this in mind. '''ProgrammingGeek
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stub (WP:STUB||WP:R||WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP)

Comment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koren_Specific_Technique&type=revision&diff=712076810&oldid=712074512 There are more unreliable sources in the article than there are reliable sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Koren_Specific_Technique&oldid=712074512 There are only 4 reliable sources on the topic. The specific information about Tedd Koren is not about the Koren Specific Technique. This is clearly a violation of . Based on coverage from reliable sources the article is not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATRACK)

Comment: It seems clear from the insurance source material that the technique is considered experimental. I don't think there are any medical claims made in the article as I write. But is it notable? Of Cunard's sources, all but the "Bullshit" source are local coverage of local practitioners. None of them are strong evidence of notability of the practice itself. One could claim that the number of articles, like the number of "providers" on the Koren website indicate that it is notable, but it seems like a close call. I believe that the  sentence "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents" applies. This really focuses us on the insurer statements. One could claim that if the technique was very uncommon, the insurers would not have a policy against overing it. But are three enough (although Aetna is massive)? It's a close call for me still, will dig in further
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: The "weak" part is not coming from a doubt about sourcing, but about : I feel we have no reliable source for a sentence like "this technique has not been proven efficient", and none of the alternatives look attractive. (1) not saying anything about the lack of validation may mislead readers, (2) saying "chiropractors disagree with the technique" can be misleading as it implies chiropractic itself is serious medicine (which it is not), and (3) saying "no reliable scientific study has been made" is borderline POV as it implies that because it was not scientifically studied it is necessary bollocks (which is an erroneous reasoning even if the conclusion is probably valid). If no suitable formulation can be found, then deletion is warranted regardless of notability
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)