Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of MD and DO in the United States


 * 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 and ameliorate concerns through regular editing. Skomorokh, barbarian  00:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of MD and DO in the United States

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Unnecessary comparison, US-centricism and a topic that can be easily dealt with in the respected articles. The precedent this article sets is also worrying. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that comparison articles should be kept when they provide content that would not easily fit into any existing single article, and where the comparison itself is of interest. Comparison between Roman and Han Empires is a good example of this.   -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This is a widely discussed topic. With numerous journal articles published on the comparison of the two degrees. Bryan Hopping  T  02:00, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Precedents don't exist in Wikipedia. There are plenty of references in the article.  And what's this US centricism nonsense?  The Wikipedia has articles about things all over the world.  No one would complain that the list of presidents in a country is centric to that nation and thus shouldn't be allowed, or an article about someone only notable in their nation.   D r e a m Focus  10:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep very well researched article with many medical journals cited. Ikip (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is an interesting article, maybe. It's also a research paper, so it's WP:OR. But even beyond that, is such a narrowly defined comparison even a notable topic? I say Delete. Mangoe 13:58, October 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Very interesting and well sourced article. I've often wondered the difference between an M.D. and a D.O. myself. TomCat4680 (talk) 14:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to Health care in the United States. An interesting article, but "interesting" is not a criterion that's very useful when determining notability.  Many of the "keep" arguments here boil down to WP:ILIKEIT, which isn't very helpful.  SDY (talk) 15:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure the AfD suggestion was made in good faith, but this is a frivolous AfD. The article is a very notable topic.  The "comparison of MD and DO" is discussed in numerous books, scholarly journals, and media articles.  Even a casual glance at the sources listed for this article would reveal that.  The idea that this article should be deleted because it is "US-centric" is ridiclous.  It's an article about a topic that exists in the United States.  It is no more US-centric than the article about the Grand Canyon. There is no reason whatsoever to delete or merge this article.   Bryan Hopping  T  17:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I can't find anything wrong with the article. Just because it centers on a U.S. medical debate doesn't mean it is not encyclopedic. Warrah (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It'd almost make sense to have a "medical practitioners in the United States" article that would cover MDs, DOs, NPs, PAs, and such, but I'm very reticent about the term "comparison" as part of the title of any Wikipedia article: it implies analysis and evaluation rather than a presentation of facts. Even just renaming the article might be a good first step.  "MD and DO in the United States" maybe.  That it's US-biased is irrelevant, it clearly states that in the title and the distinction is important since the DO degree in the US is different from foreign degrees with the same name.  SDY (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I haven't yet formed an opinion on keeping or deleting, but I must say that I am sure that any similar article about, say, India or Brazil would end up as a unanimous "delete". Please let's judge this by the same standards that we would use for articles about other large countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If there were noteworthy comparisons from India or Brazil on similar topics, they would not be deleted. Please, look at the sources before you judge. This is a noteworthy topic, as the numerous sources for this article clearly indicate.  There are many articles on this exact topic, the "Comparison of MD and DO in the United States" or as the article was originally titled "Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic medicine in the United States."  Let's judge this article by the same standards as every other article.  This topic is widely discussed by reliable sources.  Isn't that the end of the debate?  Bryan Hopping  T  20:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So long as it's clear that it's not "Wikipedia's opinion" since we are the mirror, not the lamp. Calling it a "comparison" is problematic.  Whether it's the US or India or Brazil or Uzbekistan is irrelevant.  SDY (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I hope that, as with all articles, RS will guide us. In this case, those sources are listed in the references section of the article.  Reprinting the sources listed in the article seems pedantic to me, but I will do so.  Bryan Hopping  T  03:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)










 * Phil Galewitz. MD or DO—does it matter to you? Palm Beach Post. 6 Nov 2007


 * Uh... OK. None of this tells me this article wouldn't be better titled without the "comparison of."  Comparing things vs. documenting differences isn't a huge difference, and this is mostly a question of easy fixes rather than outright deletion.  I never challenged that the article was unsourced, rather that it presented the information in a way that is not compatible with the expectations of an encyclopedia.  SDY (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to 'Comparison of Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice' or similar. The topic appears to be notable and have significant coverage, but the title appears to both make unnecessary use of acronyms & to unnecessarily restrict the topic to the medical qualifications, and to the US. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 07:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The DO degree and osteopathy are significantly different in the US than they are elsewhere, so restricting it to the US isn't inappropriate. See my comments above on why "comparison" articles are dubious by construction.  SDY (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The DO degree" is only 1 of 13 disambiguations of DO, so using that acronym in the title is uninformative. (ii) if they are "significantly different in the US than they are elsewhere" then giving the US comparison in isolation is misleading. (iii) The article does not discuss either qualification (or either discipline) generally, but only the difference between the two. Thus 'Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice' misrepresents the scope. The alternatives would appear to be 'Comparison of Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice', 'Differences between Osteopathic and Allopathic medical practice' or 'Osteopathic versus Allopathic medical practice'. The former would appear to be the more encyclopaedic phrasing. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:22, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the acronyms are not ideal. "Versus" is clearly not the phrasing we're looking for.  "Comparison" I'm not too happy with, as it implies review and analysis rather than presentation of information.  "Difference" is probably a good choice.  "Osteopathic medicine" is extremely light on the osteopathy, and this article is very much about "what's the difference between a doctor with an MD as opposed to a doctor with a DO."  (answer: not too much)  SDY (talk) 10:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. This is a AfD. If there is consensus not to delete the article, let's close the AfD.  Many editors will have an opinion on renaming the article, especially using the word "allopathic" in the title.  They should be able to be involved in that discussion, held in the appropriate forum: the article's talk page.  Bryan Hopping  T  03:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The article has some problems, but deletion is not the solution.  SDY (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Focus or merge I will address some of the points raised above. Though the topic may seem banal, it is actually quite contentious. Certainly, the historical difference between MD and DO in the US is both vast and fascinating. Is the comparison between the two, at present, encyclopedic? Perhaps, but the scope should be clear. The article as it stands suffers in that, for those familiar with the topic, it cherry-picks evidence and carries a bias in favor of one side. Regarding concerns about the US-centrism of this article, the article's name appropriately cues the reader to the fact that this is going to be a US-centric article. The rest of the world has DOs, but they are fundamentally different in that they do not confer the same legal privilege as an MD, whereas a US DO degree does in nearly every way. Finally, retitling to avoid acronyms would be appropriate but difficult: saying "Comparison of medicinae doctorae and doctor of osteopathy" is the literal expansion of the acronym, but is too "jargony." Perhaps, "Comparison of medical doctors and osteopathic physicians" would work, but the DOs would probably not favor this phrasing of the distinction. Finally, "Comparison of allopathic and osteopathic physicians" is an inaccurate characterization of the scope of MDs' practice, and is considered a pejorative term by the few MDs in the US who have even heard the term. This article could use a clean up, especially by someone who is not involved as a DO (Bryan Hopping) or MD (myself). Antelan  15:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Antelan as above, with one correction. In the United States in 2009, "DO" (D.O.) currently signifies the degree "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine." There is currently some debate about changing the post-nominal letters to make the acronym proper. See http://www.do-online.org/pdf/pub_do0208dodegree.pdf Outside the US, "D.O." (DO) is an acronym for "Doctor of Osteopathy."  Bryan Hopping  T  03:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep, this topic is well-debated among med-school applicants, and has sourcing. Also, it gets viewed 3000 to 6000 times a month. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. There may be all sorts of problems with this article, including its precise title. But the topic is still notable: "Like a well-worn comic book plot, the practice of medicine most Americans are familiar with has an alternate universe—a parallel world with its own history and philosophy. It is a world where physicians train in alternate institutions, belong to alternate professional organizations and sport an alternate degree: D.O. (doctor of osteopathy) rather than M.D." Thus starts one of our sources, a scholarly article entitled "Inside osteopathic medicine’s parallel world". This may not be our most necessary article, it doesn't have global scope (and cannot, since DOs are a phenomenon restricted to the US, osteopathy elsewhere being something much more "alternative"), and it may (or may not) be biased or focused on the wrong things. But given a considerable number of reliable sources focusing on osteopathic medicine / regular medicine comparisons, I believe the topic is notable.
 * This doesn't mean that we can't adjust the focus of this article, or that we must preserve it as a separate article. Since osteopathic medicine is a minority thing, it's natural for the osteopathic medicine articles to cover the differences to regular medicine. Whether they can do so exhaustively, or whether there should be an exhaustive article on the differences which those articles can then summarise, is a matter for a pragmatic decision rather than an AfD. Hans Adler 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Best regarded as a summary article. We may need a specific statement somewhere to clarify that these sort of articles are   acceptable--sincethey are frequently cha;lenged, but usually sustained.    DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if that is needed. All it takes is a few sources saying, "...unlike an MD, DOs are..." to justify this sort of article. But an article on Comparison of Oak trees and Avalanches should not be allowed. Where the line show be drawn can be determined by sources. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD is frivolous. The number of reliable sources explicitly justifying the article AND its title is large.




 * No one is challenging WP:N. This is mostly about WP:NOT.  SDY (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The topic of the article is "Comparison of MD&DO in US." That exact topic has many reliable sources.  You are saying the topic is notable.   We have a notable topic with reliable sources.  What then is the problem?  Bryan Hopping  T  09:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we to delete all the articles in Category:Comparisons? Bryan Hopping T  09:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * When one of the first things I see when I look at that category is Comparison of Star Trek and Star Wars, I'm starting to think that's not such a bad idea. SDY (talk) 09:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's too bad, cause that article has great sources and is a VERY notable topic. Possibly the most discussed topic in modern film science fiction. Bryan Hopping T  09:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Look's someone already tried. Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_Star_Trek_and_Star_Wars  Bryan Hopping  T  09:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but notability and sourcing is not the concern for comparison articles, original research is, especially cherry picking from primary sources. WP:V is not the only criterion for articles.  (as a side point, I've never seen a comparison of ST and SW outside of purely, umm... technical experts, so VERY notable is a bit of a stretch).  Frankly, I think this particular AfD should be closed as keep at this point, since it doesn't have much in the way of original research issues.  SDY (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

To address concern of "Cherry picking": If there's ANY reliable, published source that anyone feels needs to be added to this article, please do so! The more reliable sources the better IMO. Bryan Hopping T  10:13, 29 October 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.