Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic controversy and criticism


 * 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   no consensus. No consensus to delete, a merger can continue to be discussed at the talk page.  Sandstein  06:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic controversy and criticism
AfDs for this article: 


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

It has been suggested that this article fails WP:POVFORK, and WP:Criticism says "Creating separate articles with the sole purpose of grouping the criticisms or to elaborate individual points of criticism on a certain topic would usually be considered a POV fork", as well as "Don't make articles entirely devoted to criticism of a topic that has or should have its own Wikipedia article.". In addition, the creator was told by an admin NOT to create an article entitled 'Critical views of chiropractic' as it would be a "classic pov-fork". - procedural nomination for Ip 70.71.22.45 --Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject is not a POV work. It's extensively written about and covered in reliable sources. So it meets our notability guidelines. The recent push to get rid of all criticism has provided a field day for POV pushers. NPOV indicates we include notable perspectives. If a subject related to criticism or controversy has a lot of notability it should have its own article. The rename of the Bush criticism article and the crusade against any content that isn't flattering towards OBama is doing a great disservice to our readers. Criticism of chiropractic is a very notable subject that cannot be covered adequately in the main article without violating undue weight. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep because the criticism article wasn't created as an end run around the editors of the original article (i.e. the point of a POV fork). Rather, it's a very thoroughly referenced and substantial article in its own right. If we're uncomfortable with criticism articles in general, even when apparently justified (by size and complexity), then the next best solution would be to merge in its entirety into the chiropractic article. On a related note, I think the article could stand a bit of improvement (especially to the lead section), but that's a minor issue that doesn't contribute anything to the AfD decision. TheFeds 06:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Chiropractic as this is clearly a POV fork or attempt to remove criticism from the primary article. This is not so much information that it needs to be removed from the primary article. Drawn Some (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge Most of this article is a copy and paste from related Chiropractic articles such as the Vertebral subluxation and Innate Intelligence articles. As such it just becomes a collection of critisms and is thus a POV fork.--Hughgr (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep not POV, not a POV fork, and meets WP:GNG easily. As noted in above keeps it is a valid and well sourced article. Verbal   chat  23:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable aspect of a topic that is covered extensively enough that multiple linked articles are in order. Move to Public reception of chiropractic or something like that might help with the general issues with Criticism of ... articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * that might be a good idea... that way it could at least have the potential to be a NPOV article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.22.45 (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to something more NPOV (like Chiropractic kudos and criticism) since the article must be NPOV and include the 'agreement and praise' that chiropractic receives from R and VS sources. It is something that people want to know - both sides of the story. If there is no intention of adding the "agreement and praise" then it's likely just a POV Fork and should be Delete. -- Dēmatt  (chat)  16:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hughgr or Rename per Dematt. -- &#601;&#652;l&#601;&#653;&#647; &#601;uo-&#654;&#647;u&#601;&#653;&#647;  ssn&#596;s&#305;p 04:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There are similar pages like Chiropractic controversy and criticism. For example, see Aspartame controversy, Criticism of Wikipedia, or Vaccine controversy. The main chiropractic page is too large to cover the notable topic of chiropractic controversy and criticism This article obviously meets WP:GNG easily with numerous sources covering the WP:NPOV title. QuackGuru (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * other crap exists... two of those pages have neutrality tags on them and the criticism of wikipedia one also says "This article's use of the terms Criticism or Controversy in its title may mean the article does not present a neutral point of view of the subject."... see also Neutral_point_of_view 70.71.22.45 (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and/or rename per ChildofMidnight and Dēmatt. It's a very obvious and notable subject that documents what has always characterized the profession. This article will now have the opportunity for growth which the subject has been denied by some of the chiropractic editors who have always cried "undue weight" as an excuse to minimize and hide the subject. The option of a rename mentioned by Dēmatt is definitely preferable to deletion. We aren't forced to choose between "keep" or "delete". Merging is not a good option as this subject has enough notability in its own right to be a large article. The profession has always been characterized by criticism and controversy from both inside and outside the profession, and that story is not and cannot be told properly in the main chiropractic article. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete POV fork, just a collection of criticisms, plus, like Hughgr said, this is just a repeat of criticisms from Vertebral subluxation, Innate Intelligence, and Chiropractic_history articles.  Enough already. --stmrlbs | talk  05:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Chiropractic. It may be a rather challenging merge, but at the moment this is a bit POV forky.  There's simply no need for a fork. Chiropractic currently is at 4760 words of readable prose (according to Did you know/DYKcheck) and Chiropractic controversy and criticism is at 1522 words.  Thus, even if every single word were preserved, the merged page would be 6282 words, well within the acceptable range specified at Article size. Cool3 (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the actual size of the article isn't yet a problem, but so far the objection from chiropractic supporters is "undue weight". They don't realize (or don't want it described) just how much criticism and controversy has characterized the history of this profession, and it's growing right now because of the latest screwup by the profession in England - their attempt to sue Simon Singh for libel. This article is just beginning and will grow much larger, and then even I would consider it undue weight to include so much material in the main article. As it is now, the chiropractic supporters would never allow all this in the article. Certain of them are pretty good at wikilawyering and stonewalling to keep out such things, no matter how well sourced. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.