Deletion of German Acupuncture Trials

Comment: per . Secondary sources can be combined into the acupuncture article. If there is independent secondary sources on these trials it can be discussed in a research section of the acupuncture article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATHOOK)

Comment: this is currently a massive  failure by relegating criticism to the bottom of the article.  It does also appear to be overly detailed.  says we need to appropriately marginalise pseudoscience, so '''delete''' is my view
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: as it is notable for its direct consequences in the German health care system and the huge debate it triggered. There's sufficient secondary sourcing. And  hardly applies since these trials showed quite clearly that verum and sham acupuncture had the same efficiency - which puts it at odds with the beliefs of Traditional Chinese medicine
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATHOOK)

Comment: Wikipedia is not a  for true believers in acupuncture. The current version is littered with |unimportant details. A brief mention in acupuncture might be warranted if shown to be notable by reliable  sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:SOAPBOX||WP:NOTEVERYTHING||WP:SECONDARY)

Comment: as it stands, because the article is a  for acupuncture promoters. It could be rewritten as something else, but that would require a buttload more reliable secondary sources and a completely different focus
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Coatrack articles (WP:COATHOOK)