Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychopuncture
I don't think we need even go into Guy's suggestion that there is an effort here to legitimize pseudoscience (plenty of Wikipedia articles exist for such topics, which are at times notable, regardless of the value of their practices or the strength of their following).  I'm more compelled by the observations made on Talk:Psychopuncture|the article's talk page which seem to illustrate that the sourcing used to support the article has been misrepresented to suggest that said sources pertain to the topic at hand, when they in fact do not.  Remaining sources are subject to a variety of other issues, most being both primary and otherwise non-|reliable under policy, and most all of them being used in conjunction with the synthesis referenced above
— User:Snow, 23:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:RS (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)