Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic treatment techniques


 * 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. I considered a "no consensus" close as there is not a consensus to delete, but "keep" is more appropriate as many of the deletion !votes are really arguing for a merge and acknowledging that the topic is part of a valid topic. The space between the "keep" and "delete" arguments is thus fairly characterized as a content dispute that should be resolved through normal discussion and editing. postdlf (talk) 22:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic treatment techniques

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article serves primarily as a WP:POVFORK of. We also have articles on (also an entirely unnecessary fork),  (wihch is not the same as chirporactic but is written as if it is),,  (what next, sports homeopathy? Oh, wait, that's called isotonic hydration),  (unethical) and a few more. There are only so many ways you can write "this is a thing that chiros believe, they are wrong, the only people who support tihs are other chiros, the objective evidence shows it to be nonsense, and usually exploitative nonsense at that". It's time to start deleting the forks and merging the very similarly worded cruft. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Keep as improved in utility and readability as absolutely unreadable (F-K score of 7 - and only 3% of Wikipedia articles are less readable (many of which are lists). If no one can understand what an article says, then clearly we are better off without it. Collect (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Collect (talk) 22:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Makes good sense to me and seems well sourced. (Not saying it can't be improved.) If it's a POV FORK, it's probably because the chiropracter haters bullied the info out of the main page.  Don't think that's what WP s/b about.  My sympathies to whoever defended this on the main page and eventually resorted to this. WP is a WORLD encyclopaedia.  If this can't stay, what other hugely important medical info that doesn't have the Americans' AMA FDA blessing is also being squeezed out?  Paavo273 (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This argument boils down to disagreement with our policies. Creating a POVFORK to avoid scrutiny and compliance with our content policies is never acceptable, and it's certainly not a reason to keep this article.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per Paavo273. Another effort at censorship by the fringe cabel.   GregJackP   Boomer!   00:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * keep not much reason to further scale back the Wiki's already scarce medical knowledge resources that haven't already been lost down the memory hole. misguided deletionism at best; inexcusable at least. 74.51.150.221 (talk) 03:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see a valid reason for deletion. If there is a problem, then be bold and fix it. Take a look at these two versions: As I created it, and after User:Eubulides added more from the main article. It wasn't until later that significant bloat occurred. I suggest that you simply go through and remove any unsourced and undue promotional language, if that's the problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep—the article seems decently sourced, and the various techniques mentioned should each have reliable sources showing notability, or that particular "technique" ought to be removed. I concur with the previous commenter that much of the article is badly written, but that is no reason to AfD it.  Perhaps a request to the Guild of Copy Editors would be in order.  N2e (talk) 13:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * N2e, keep in mind that individual items in an article do not have to be notable, only reliably sourced. Notability only applies to article creation. Otherwise I like your suggestion about the GOCE. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thought, Brangifer; I see what you mean about the notability/verifiability distinction. So I've reworded my previous comment.
 * On the GOCE idea, I will try to remember to request a GOCE copyedit once the AfD discussion is over. If I forget, anyone is, of course, free to request at the Guild of Copy Editors—Request page.  N2e (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The comments above indicating there is "no reason" to delete are baffling. Being a POVFORK is not only a reason, it's a really good one. The content is already duplicated in a slew of other articles, so this one isn't adding anything to our coverage of the topic. If, as indicated above, the reason for the article is to dump content which was deemed in violation of our content policies in the main article, that's a reason to remove it, not to keep it.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 15:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The content was not moved because it violated any policy, but because including it all in the main article created a weight issue. That is a legitimate reason for creating a fork article. (BTW, you say this is "duplicated in a slew of other articles". If ALL this content is duplicated there - and it's not - trim that content to a minimum, because this is where we go in depth on that topic.) That is also the reason we have so many chiropractic-related articles. The main article got too bloated, so the fork articles are legitimate spinoffs. Otherwise, I'm not saying it couldn't be trimmed and improved. It could definitely benefit from some copyediting. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge or delete by policy - obvious POV fork - David Gerard (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Turn into a list/merge, or delete Looks like a fork (I would suspect POV, but per WP:POVFORK don't want to call it that because it isn't a blantant one), but why don't we merge its content with that on the Chiropracy page and turn this page into a listing of all of the other subpages on individual chiropractic treatments that the original poster recommended? To me, that seems like the best way to resolve this dispute.  However, as a content fork, I would support deletion if no merging/listing consensus is reached. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep is well-sourced and I don't see a reason why alternate medicine shouldn't also be covered on wiki, in separate articles by topic if necessary. LT910001 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete-- agree with LT above that some of the sources appear sound, however I'm struggling to understand how the scope of this article is distinct from the main article. There does appear to be POV issues in the article since the general tone is different from how chiro is discussed on the main article ... chiro is such a controversial topic that I think it is better to have it all in as few places as possible so neutral editors can better keep an eye on things. Lesion  ( talk ) 13:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article is an unintentional FORK that is mostly about spinal manipulation. Chiropractic treatment techniques are discussed at Chiropractic. There is no need for a separate article to promote a fringe topic. Side note: I thought it was odd the text currently says: "Spinal manipulation appears effective for chronic low-back pain.[11]" QuackGuru  ( talk ) 05:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * comment: That sentence is per the sources cited.   Sorry -- but we do like to use what the source actually states. Collect (talk) 14:27, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This was not a properly executed WP:CFORK. What needs to happen is an effective merge of usable content back to the article from whence it supposedly came. If it is accepted by the users editing there, and the content becomes unmanageable and long, then and only then should a spin-off be considered. Right now this is a WP:POVFORK. jps (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note This article dates back to 2 December 2007. It is more than six years old ... calling it a POVFORK now is silly. Collect (talk) 14:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge back to chiropractic. POV forking is not an approved method of dealing with content disputes. Stifle (talk) 14:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * IOW you feel that a 6+ year old "content dispute" was the reason for this article, and it takes over six years to notice it? Collect (talk) 15:01, 22 February 2014 (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.