Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine 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. --ST47 Talk&middot;Desk 14:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

History of the relationship of osteopathic and allopathic medicine in the United States
– (View AfD) (View log) Article's contents are essentially a fork of material that may belong in the main osteopathic medicine article. Update: After having combed through the article with OsteopathicFreak, I do believe that we can find enough material for this subject to merit its own article, whereas previously I was doubtful. Ante lan  talk  20:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete looks like just a bunch of notes.-- Sef rin gle Talk 20:51, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't delete. Nominating user has repeated deleted this information from other pages.  Article is still a stub and in development. The solution may be to merge the article into  History of medicine, as a section. However, this is a very specific topic that deserves its own article.  It would be somewhat distracting on the main History of medicine page.  User:OsteopathicFreak 21:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we keep this about the article? I know you created the article originally, but AfD is not to be taken personally, and I notified you appropriately about the proceedings. Ante  lan  talk  02:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

comment there is a specific tag for the purpose. DGG (talk) 23:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Tag your article as a stub and put in something like "RESEARCH IN PROGRESS-- Please Don't Delete" At this point, it may be a bunch of notes, but it's a history of how the acceptance (of alternative health care practices) has changed in the last 50 years.  You know, it wasn't that long ago that it was considered unethical (and cause for loss of license) for a phyisican to recommend someone to go to an osteopath, chiropractor, acupuncturist, etc.  Just as the "Blue Laws" of a generation ago have changed, so has this.  Mandsford 23:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment for author: I left out the most important thing... change the title of your page to User:Antelan/History of Osteopathic Medicine. If you've never moved an article before (changing its name), you just go to the article and click on the tab that says Move.  Take this one out of the mainstream if you're working on it.  Mandsford 00:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag for clean up per above. It is a wikiworthy topic and appears too long to include fully in a seperate article. CraigMonroe 00:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect The current content in this article belongs on Wikipedia, but is better suited elsewhere. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine for my suggestion as to where to put it.  Also, the article talks more about how osteopathic medicine is currently integrated than how it was previously segregated.  Since this article is mostly about the acceptance over time of osteopathic medicine, this would be better suited in a "History of osteopathic medicine" article or section of an article.  --Scott Alter 01:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep well-sourced, apparently notable, more iformation than would be justified to merge. ~ Infrangible 02:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to look again at the sourcing in that article. The article is has POV issues, especially the portions that are not sourced.
 * "The history of discrimination against osteopathic medicine begins with the Flexner Report." This is WP:OR and, given the actual contents of the Flexner Report, a factually inaccurate and highly-POV representation. The Flexner report led to the closure of 94 of the 160 MD-granting medical schools, making a "discrimination" claim hard to stomach. Flexner noted the similarity of MD and DO training, and insisted that DOs be held to the same standards that he was proposing for MDs. This is not "discrimination" by allopathic medicine against osteopathic medicine. It's straight POV OR.
 * "Discrimination against osteopathic medicine is a type of anti-competitive practice of allopathic organizations and physicians against osteopathic organizations and physicians." This is the second sentence in the article, and unsourced.
 * "For example, some MDs oppose the current AMA policy declaring for equality between the DO and MD degree." This is an extremely loose interpretation of the AMA statement, and is based on a generally untrue premise (MD and DO are not equivalent - DOs have specialized training that MDs lack).
 * One of the See alsos is Anti-competitive practices. Should we put a See also: imperialism at the top of the History of United States article because that is the point of view of some people?
 * In conclusion, I feel that much of the material belongs merged into other articles, and much of the material should be removed. Ante  lan  talk  03:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article needs a lot of work. But at the same time it is sourced appropriately and is notable. I don't see any justification to delete it. It's possible that it could be merged, but I feel that it will make the parent article unnecessarily long. Trusilver 22:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've started a list above your comment regarding just a few of the portions of this article that seem, to me, inappropriate and unsourced. I find it strange that people continue to say that it's "sourced appropriately". It really doesn't seem that way to me, but I sincerely would like to get some feedback if am I just off-base here. Ante  lan  talk  22:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentI perhaps should have said that it's generally sourced appropriately. I've read through most of the references and have been able to match up a lot of the article with it's source material. Sure there's a few things here or there that I haven't found where it's coming from, but that's a flaw in a whole lot of articles. It's nothing to delete it over. Trusilver 23:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Making Improvements. I fixed some of the more egregious POV issues that were raised in this discussion. The article does need some work.  But there's too much info to go in any other article.  The topic is interesting and noteworthy in its own right.  There are entire books written on it.  With time, more information will be added.   Osteopathic  Freak  T ? 23:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made some edits as well. With the changes we've made, I do have a better sense for how this could grow beyond a history of osteopathic medicine. Ante  lan  talk  00:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep for now, seems as though it could grow into a full article, Merge into Osteopathic Medicine history section but recommend 1) POV check, 2) removal of all POV statements noted above that are not sourced, 3) removal of propaganda per WP:NOT. Leuko 00:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 12:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-referenced, biased, and non-notable 71.199.240.158 23:33, 15 July 2007 (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.