Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pursed lip breathing

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:59, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pursed lip breathing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks more like a Wiktionary thing to me! And no refs. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems to be a common technique that will be easy to source given a chance. Just a quick Google search shows the exact term used for a variety of reasons, plus images, videos, etc. such as [1], [2], [3] I think there may be more here than meets the eye. The current article is little more than a stub (not relevant for an AFD), but as for the article meeting criteria for inclusion, I think it clearly does. I certainly don't doubt you nom'ing this in good faith, but I think you might have jumped the gun a bit. Dennis Brown (talk) 12:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Dennis noted a Google search shows the topic is real and the article accurate. Some of the article's see also's do seem a bit odd. BigJim707 (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like a real, used term and a real subject North8000 (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This reference, cited above, includes a listing of many articles published in major medical journals which are about this therapeutic breathing technique, so it satisfies WP:N. This book actually discusses "pursed lip breathing" as an example of finding reliable sources in medical journals, and says the author found such sources. Here are others of the Google Books hits, which have with significant coverage: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. Google Scholar has 1300 hits: [14]. Edison (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable. SL93 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 2004 Review article which is freely accessible. It is in English if you click on it. PMID:15161595 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.