Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Koren Specific Technique


 * 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. Most seem to agree that we should cover this topic somehow, but there's no agreement about whether it's notable enough to warrant a separate article. Perhaps a merge proposal to some appropriate other article might be better placed to find consensus.  Sandstein  21:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Koren Specific Technique

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Compare Articles for deletion/Chiropractic Biophysics. This particular chiropractic technique has not received the outside notice we would require for a notable alternative medicine modality. jps (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. There are more unreliable sources in the article than there are reliable sources. There are only 4 reliable sources on the topic. The specific information about Tedd Koren is not about the Koren Specific Technique. This is clearly a violation of WP:COATRACK. Based on coverage from reliable sources the article is not notable. User:Valoem stated There is no issue with using primary sources, they can not be used for notability, but can be used for information. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep There are four reliable sources which gives this subject significant coverage. I added some primary sources for NPOV, however they can be removed. I wrote this article due to my science background, as per WP:FRINGE this is quackery, but notable quackery. We coverage quackery so the public can be informed. Valoem   talk   contrib  18:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You restored the unreliable sources and coatrack after they were deleted. Primary sources and the coatrack are still in the article. Your not sure if this GNG, but you think it should be a speedy keep? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's called a neutral message buddy. If I said I was sure this is notable on his talk page that would be bias, but I can saying it clearly here that my opinion is that is notable. Valoem   talk   contrib  21:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I also see no reliable sources giving the source significant coverage. Here's a breakdown of the sources:
 * Pagosa Daily Post: not WP:FRIND compliant.
 * Sunrise Health Institute: not WP:FRIND compliant.
 * McCoy Press: not WP:FRIND compliant.
 * Passing mention in a National Health Service document (on a list -- does not speak to notability whatsoever).
 * "Inspire Chiropractic": not WP:FRIND compliant.
 * Chirobase article is about the chiropractor Ted Koren and not about the technique itself.
 * jps (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh! I can removed those sources if consensus demands, I was trying for NPOV, we have the same goals to protect the public from quackery, DGG, once eloquent stated that in order to remain NPOV we should first write what the fringe proponent views and then the scientific views. Beside NHS Leeds West CCG there are other publications which states this is quackery, though the phrase they use is investigation with no statistically significant effect on health. Because most science journal (including those in the chiropractic community) have been mostly negative, I though it would be fair to states the proponents views, but that can always be corrected. It looks like this is an article for clean up and I think we have the same goals to expose quackery for what it is. Just to note User:teddkoren has been vandalizing the page changing the term quackery to "health care protocol", jps I think we have the same goals here. Valoem   talk   contrib  19:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Those are the only sources used in the article. I've listed them all except for the one by Ted Koren himself. Significant coverage means more than just appearing on a list, incidentally. jps (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * this is very clearly significant, it also appears to support the method. Valoem   talk   contrib  19:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A chiropractic source is not reliable for this article at all. Nor does it qualify as WP:FRIND for WP:NFRINGE purposes. jps (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes this is, it it clearly independent. Valoem   talk   contrib  19:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See http://chiropracticpediatrics.sharepoint.com/Pages/2011_1023_asthma.aspx It appears to be a case study not a review. The editorial board is made of largely chiropractors. Do you still think they are independent? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes chiropractic sources are considered independent as long as it is not a proponent of KST. Valoem  talk   contrib  20:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Unequivocally incorrect. Chiropractic sources are not independent sources for establishing the notability of this chiropractic method any more than, say, a creationist source would be considered an independent source for establishing the notability of a particular creationist argument. jps (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's odd, jps, but I'm pretty sure that nobody at WT:Notability would agree with you on that "unequivocally incorrect" claim.
 * I'm more interested in where you get the idea that a local news magazine isn't an WP:Independent source. I understand why you think it's a lousy source, but I want to know why you think it's not independent.  As defined in that page, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective."  What vested interest do you accuse them of holding?  Are they maybe trying to make money by promoting it?  (That's the most common vested interest.)  I'd cheerfully kill the source for other reasons (e.g., a lack of WP:SIGCOV), but you've made an accusation that any journalist would find quite insulting.  I think you should explain what you meant.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You're right. The Pagosa Daily post sources is just slow news day fodder. We are explicitly directed not to consider that as something conferring notability. jps (talk) 10:52, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. WP is an encyclopedia that includes notable nonsense, and this is notable enough. We should not attempt to destroy articles on such topics.  And it is necessary to first describe something before presenting the criticism, and for idiosyncratic topics like this the contriver of the method can be a suitable source for what he claims to have done. In fact, this one is so  weird that perhaps a fuller explanation is needed.  DGG ( talk ) 19:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * btw,  the article in Mccoy press journal cited above does not "appear to support the method". It's a single case study, with the only evaluation of the result given as "the patient’s mother reported improvement in the boy’s condition." Even for chiropractic this is sub-standard.  DGG ( talk ) 19:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry I missed that, in that case only primary sources support the topic. Valoem   talk   contrib  19:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * How about the other unreliable sources you restored along with the coatrack? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again this is argument for clean up which can be decided after the AfD. Valoem   talk   contrib  20:01, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Per nom. Lacks notability and coverage in independent sources. PermStrump (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you even following the discussion, his nomination is based on the uses of primary sources and already stated reliable independent secondary sources exist. Valoem   talk   contrib  19:57, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is about a deletion in general, if you think this should be limited to nom's reasons please see WP:SNOW.  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 20:16, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Page! Agree which is why Permstrump's argument is invalid as at least 4 uncontroversial independent sources have been established. Valoem   talk   contrib  20:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is simply not true. Not a single independent source has been established except for a passing mention in an NHS document. jps (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with jps.  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 20:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree and have support from other editors so far. We must cover fringe fairly. Suppose we shall just let the discussion takes its course to see whether others agree. The article need expansion not delete. Our goal is to educate people on notable topics fringe or not. I hope all my opponents understand this article is written from a neutral tone and obviously is not here to promote a non-notable technique. Valoem  talk   contrib  20:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are seeing ideology where there is really just politic. The issue is that fringe theories in order to be notable must be commented upon by sources other than those which are fringe adherents themselves. This is because if a fringe theory is so obscure that the WP:MAINSTREAM has not bothered to comment on it, there is no way to write a netural article because sources that would treat the subject in the most reliable way simply don't exist and we are not empowered to offer our own means to explain what the mainstream evaluation is likely to be. It has everything to do with finding independent sources which, in this case, means sources which are not chiropractors. jps (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe there are sources other than those which are fringe adherents. I sent Cunard a message to see if additional sources exist as he is excellent at source finding. Also I don't believe non-KST chiropractic sources are considered primary. That's the same thing as saying all biology related sources are primary for sources for topics involving biology. Valoem   talk   contrib  20:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is precisely one other editor (besides you) who agrees. This doesn't matter; we need consensus; but it seems jps raises some good points. My compromise is to userfy (!vote) until more reliable sources can be found.  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 21:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Update. Without a logically explanation Valoem removed the tags without fixing the problems. Valoem, you previously said "only primary sources support the topic." The sentence "The technique has been regarded as quackery due to lack of scientific evidence,[6][not in citation given] though Koren disputes this claim.[7][improper synthesis?] failed verification. The article is a mess. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 03:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * AfD can at times be a highly unbalanced process. People often disagree with scope of coverage when creating an encyclopedia which is why we undergo this process. In regards to AfD discussions editors new to subject should be allowed to judge the merits of the sources without bias. Tagging an article may cause an inherent bias to be formed that each source in question has already been disregarded. If our goal is to evaluate a subject neutrally tags should be removed so editors can judge the sources for themselves. The AfD itself is a trial each source is therefore already in question, tagging creates additional bias. Sorry if I didn't make that clear in my edit summary. Valoem   talk   contrib  04:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to keep unreliable sources in the article. What about the original research? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 04:43, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree that the sources are unreliable which is reason for the AfD process is it not? When was the decision made those are all poor sources? Valoem   talk   contrib  05:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just updated the article and addressed the synth and citation issues. Valoem  talk   contrib  07:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Still, there's the notability in serious doubt and the sources are still seriously doubtful. I think you should just let it go.  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 12:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "and has not been supported by scientific evidence of having positive health effects.[7]"? No. Deleting the tags did not address the citation issues. There are still problems.
 * The first sentence says "Koren Specific Technique (KST) is a chiropractic treatment technique developed by Tedd Koren in 2005.[1][2][not in citation given][3][not in citation given]" At least two sources failed verification. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am struggling to believe you seriously cannot find an issue with these sources Valoem. Can we just put this article out of its misery. Thanks.  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment. There was a significant, ongoing, two-year controversy inside the chiropractic profession regarding Koren and KST -- he taught seminars to teach the KST technique to non-chiropratics, was told not to do so by a host of professional associations, and was sanctioned by a global chiropractic association as a result. Interestingly, Koren responded that it is not a chiropractic technique, but an "analytic" one, hence it was ok.. The Koren website has what looks like a couple hundred 'providers' of the technique. Google turns up some U.S. insurers stating that they do not cover it. Similar story with the NHS citation.. If it were totally unheard of, the insurers wouldn't be listing it. I could see a lede that says that KST is an experimental treatment technique that has been the subject of controversy in the chiropractic profession and does not has not been accepted as effective by insurers that cover other chiropractic techniques. I'm not sure that this rises to the level of notability, however. In the interim, I will make a couple changes to get the article to match the sources. Chris vLS (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, per DGG. We document plenty of notable nonsense here, and this is in that class of voodoo hand waving garbage. There should be improvement using some of the sources mentioned, especially those mentioned by Chris vLS (who may wish to actually !vote). As a fringe subject, notability can be established using some fringe sources per WP:Parity, and insurance company's evaluation is not fringe. It's notable as a method rejected by them and mainstream health care. I have written quite a bit on how to deal with fringe subjects. You may find it interesting. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Insurance companies websites are not secondary sources and therefore not RS. You have not shown there is notable documentation. Most sources mentioned by User:Chrisvls are not reliable. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * QG, that's utter BS. Aetna and other insurance companies are not owned, controlled, or related to Tedd Koren, ergo they are secondary sources for our use here. The source specifically mentions KST, so it's usable and demonstrates that the technique is rejected by a major insurance carrier. You claim to be a quack guru, but instead you're failing to use a perfectly legitimate way to expose quackery. Weird! You should adopt DGG's rationale:
 * A pragmatic viewpoint which harmonizes well with our policies is expressed by David Goodman ("User:DGG"), one of our most esteemed and experienced editors. In real life he is a librarian, and here he is an administrator and member of the Arbitration Committee:
 * "[I have a] distaste for quack anything: medicine, science, psychology, social science ... I often vote to keep articles on these subjects, because the advocates of orthodoxy here sometimes seem to be even less reasonable than the quacks--and because I think the best way to expose quacks is to let them state their views plainly." — User:DGG
 * Goodman points to the very real problem of attempts by certain skeptics to delete quack articles. This is a form of deletionism which violates the principles of the NPOV policy, as well as the notability policy (if a subject can establish notability, it has a right to an article here). This is very biased editing.
 * Minority opinions should not be silenced arbitrarily. They should be described, but should be assigned less weight than mainstream opinions, simply because mainstream opinions are backed by more reliable sources, reliable research, and better fact checking. Lack of these things is part of what makes an opinion a "minority" opinion. If it can muster better evidence and documentation in better sources, it becomes a mainstream opinion.
 * Since articles on fringe topics are required to give prominence to the mainstream point of view, the quack point of view should be stated succinctly, without promotion or advocacy, and the mainstream skeptical view should be stated very clearly so as to make it clear that the subject is deprecated by the mainstream. The bias in favor of the mainstream should be clear, because that is the bias found in the best sources, and in most reliable sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:28, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Aetna and other insurance company websites do not meet RS. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Since when? It all depends on how it's used. Literally ANY website can be considered as a RS here, depending on its use. Outright rejection of insurance company websites is totally wrong. There is no policy based justification for such rejection. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You have slightly mistated the case. Aetna and other insurance companies are not owned, controlled, or related to Tedd Koren, ergo they are WP:Independent sources.  This fact makes them independent, not secondary.  WP:Secondary does not mean independent.  It happens that this source is both:  it is independent because they are not related to the creator, and they are secondary because they derive their information by analyzing other (primary) sources.  This is also an example of the difference between "secondary" sources and "good" sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment, I was informed by DGG and Northamerica1000 after asking for a userfication that the article Chiropractic Biophysics was an article which was single sourced by a new editor promoting the subject and the content fell under Speedy A11.

I was under the impression we were comparing the two articles which itself is blatant WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST and invalid as a deletion rationale. But I now realized this is a discussion comparing this article to a deletion discussion the nominator states : "Compare Articles for deletion/Chiropractic Biophysics", which oddly enough was snow deleted. I think it's safe to say the nominator's bias is obvious. Valoem  talk   contrib  03:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources. The subject passes Fringe theories, which says: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia. A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers. References that debunk or disparage the fringe view can be adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents. References that are employed because of the notability of a related subject – such as the creator of a theory – should be given far less weight when deciding on notability. Due consideration should be given to the fact that reputable news sources often cover less than strictly notable topics in a lighthearted fashion, such as on April Fool's Day, as 'News of the Weird', or during 'slow news days' (see junk food news and silly season)."   The article notes: "Koren Specific Technique, or KST, corrects nerve stress, also known as subluxations, created by distortions to the spine and body structure. In lieu of twisting or 'cracking' of joints, gentle corrections are made to the spine and structural system. KST treatments can reduce or eliminate aches and discomfort virtually from head to toe. Areas that receive relief include, but are not limited to, cranial bones, the spinal column, TMJ (mandible/jaw), sternum, ribs, discs, shoulders, knees, feet and hands. ... The revolutionary technique was developed by chiropractor, author and educator Tedd Koren. After reading extensive testimonials about KST, Robertson received hands-on evidence when he visited Koren in Minnesota earlier this year and had an adjustment from the doctor himself. The results impressed Robertson enough to add KST to his chiropractic practice."  Times Internet is a subsidiary of The Times Group. The article notes: "Honorable mention: Koren Specific Technique. A branch of chiropractics where someone rubs your back with a very expensive vibrator. KST also makes its diagnoses by touching the occipital drop of the skull, which makes it not so different from phrenology."  The article notes: "He has received training in two new techniques that he said are not widely used in western Iowa: the Koren Specific Technique and the Cranial Adjusting Turner Style. The Koren Specific Technique allows the chiropractor to work with patients in the position that causes them the most discomfort — for instance, standing for people who stand a lot at work, or sitting down for truck drivers who spend days in a seat."  The article notes: "Dr. Michael H. Crosbie has been practicing as a chiropractor for 8 years in Humboldt County. In an effort to better serve his patients, some who travel from as far south as Ukiah and north from Hoopa, Crosbie Chiropractic is moving to a more central location in Fortuna. After Monday, May 10, their new location will be at 1828 Main Street, next to Coast Central Credit Union. Dr. Crosbie is a graduate of Cleveland Chiropractic College in Los Angeles, Class of 1982 and has been practicing as a chiropractor for 28 years. Dr. Crosbie is trained in many low force techniques, but specializes in the Thompson, Palmer, Applied Kinesiology and Diversified applications. He has been practicing the Koren Specific Technique for 3 years and recently returned from an advanced KST seminar. KST is especially effective in the treatment of headaches, TMJ, vertigo and dizziness."  The article notes: "Joseph J. McAulliffe, D.C. of ProActive Family Chiropractic takes Koren Specific Technique (KST) training to help community. This technique was developed and taught by chiropractor, author and educator Tedd Koren, D.C. Benefits of this technique include: patients often see immediate results or improvements, long lasting, positive changes in posture, function and lessening of pain are often observed and adjustments frequently last or 'hold' longer."</li> <li> The article notes: "Dr. Scott Marsh, of Alcoa, has become one of the first chiropractors in the United States to become certified in the Koren Specific Technique. He was personally trained by Dr. Tedd Koren, the originator of this new adjusting technology. According to Dr. Koren, the technique permits chiropractors to analyze and correct subluxations accurately, specifically and with low-force to a greater degree."</li> </ol>There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Saying some of those sources confer notability is a bit of a stretch. The only two sources that seem to have a wide circulation are Gizmodo (and then, look at the title, and use common sense) and possibly The Times Leader (which I have never heard of, but may be significant). The other two are just about local doctors who have been trained, and that doesn't even cover all of the articles other issues. Finally, looking at the articles edit history, there were a few edits by a user named "Teddkoren". I really hope we can get consensus here.  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 11:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources presented by User:Cunard are mass WP:MEDRS violations which cannot be used in the article and therefore do not count towards notability. This confirms there is insufficient coverage in reliable sources for the technique. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There are only four reliable sources in the article. The MEDRS violations should not be restored. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Invalid rationale, this is not a valid medical technique and is not considered one therefore WP:MEDRS should not apply. Also please do not remove sources mid AfD. There are those who disagree those sources are unuseable therefore the AfD discussion was started to determine that. Valoem   talk   contrib  17:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bad faith editing from QuackGuru, considered this is formal warning, the sources your removed from these edits is undisputed vandalism, as they are the strongest sources in the article. Specific this Aetna source stating this is not covered and then giving a detailed description as to what the technique is. Then the tone was changed to one which is highly promotional. For those unaware QuackGuru, has received a wave of topic bans specifically with fringe and E-cig topics, due to disruptive editing such as this. Any further removing of sources during an AfD will be taken seriously.  Valoem   talk   contrib  17:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please do not restore sources that fail MEDRS and RS. Primary sources are not even RS. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:26, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is the specific source which you removed Aetna Healthcare which is the strongest source in the article. This is not good faith editing. Valoem   talk   contrib  17:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not a secondary source. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:30, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously it is. Valoem   talk   contrib  17:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Aetna, Inc. /ˈɛtnə/ is an American managed health care company. It is absolutely not RS. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:34, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You still haven't shown how any of the sources that were removed are reliable. On the talk page you wrote "There is no issue with using primary sources, they can not be used for notability, but can be used for information." There is an issue with using primary sources. Primary sources are not reliable. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:52, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * QG, you are overstating the policies to the point of being wrong. All published sources are reliable for something (see the FAQ at the top of WT:V).  Aetna's website is unquestionably reliable for statements about what that company says or claims to do.  It is equally unquestionably unreliable for statements about, say, cold fusion or geopolitics.  You cannot determine reliability without comparing the source to the statement.  There is no "absolutely reliable source" or "absolutely unreliable source".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment - Could everyone please calm down? Edit wars at the article do no good, nor does canvassing. Rather than deleting the defective sources, why not just tag them with (for instance) primary-inline, RS, or MEDRS until the AFD concludes? LeadSongDog come howl!  18:08, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That didn't work. The tags were removed without a logically explanation. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this not a logical explanation? Plus after you retagged I did not revert, editors can still see the sources. But then after a wave of keeps you realized the sources have to be removed in order to get the article deleted. Valoem   talk   contrib  18:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So far not a single editor has shown the topic is notable using reliable sources. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:45, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * We also need the sources to establish notability, and these sources have utterly failed at that. Can we put this article out of its misery?  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 18:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Recommend speedy keep due to bias nominations and invalid arguments from the deletion side. Valoem   talk   contrib  18:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the unreliable sources you restored was https://www.teddkorenseminars.com/ If you think that source is reliable then you think practically any source is reliable? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It all depends on its use. As a primary source about itself, it is specifically allowed for documentation purposes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and you should always assume WP:GOODFAITH. Also, a speedy keep is not helping anything here - we have an incredibly lengthy AfD debate, and that's good considering that any consensus will have to be because it was debated. Regardless, I can honestly say I have zero bias or COI. Anyway, you could say I'm on the (pardon the pun) WP:FRINGE on whether or not to keep this. Since I have never !voted, Weak delete.  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 01:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominators rationale --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * QG's misapplication of MEDRS. MEDRS only applies to medical claims, not documentation and description of the subject and its claims, even if they are fringe and nonsense medical claims. It is allowable to use any source necessary to document the subject matter. If the subject makes nonsense claims, we document that they are nonsense using other and better sources. We don't allow fringe claims to stand unopposed, and we don't use the fact that they are nonsense to justify deleting them or failing to document them. They must be described and exposed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * For medical claims MEDRS applies. For other claims WP:SECONDARY applies. You think Tedd Koren's website is reliable. I disagree with using the primary source. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 19:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Primary sources are allowed to document the subject. That's policy. If we wrote an article about you, we would be allowed (and required!) to use what you have written, and your website, to document your claims and facts about you, even if they were nonsense. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I could make a website and wrote down everything about me. That still doesn't confer notability, and none of the cited sources give a viable claim to notability.  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You are completely correct, primary sources do not establish notability and sources such as teddkoren.com are not valid as passing GNG. However primary sources can be used for information if secondary sources exist. Sources such as Mccoy Studies, Our Inner Ocean, Aetna, ND.gov and leedswestccg.nhs.uk are secondary and therefore do establish notability, any editor acting neutrally will not deny this. Again, not all sources are reliable but the ones I listed excluding Cunard's references which are also secondary, are reliable and secondary. Valoem   talk   contrib  20:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * When editors think https://www.teddkorenseminars.com/ is reliable there is a serious problem here. Mccoy Studies fails MEDRS. This is getting out of hand. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:19, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No editor thinks https://www.teddkorenseminars.com/ is reliable nor establishes any kind of notability. Other sources I listed however, do. Valoem   talk   contrib  21:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * According to your edits you think https://www.teddkorenseminars.com/ is reliable. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't, that source was used in the proper function of primary sources, it does not establish notability, but can be used with discretion. Seems reasonable to allow it for stating the year of its invention, just like primary sources can be used for date of births. Valoem   talk   contrib  21:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on your edits and arguments there is no source that cannot be used in the article, especailly when you think https://www.teddkorenseminars.com/ can be used. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 22:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nowhere on the article is the fact that this is a nonsense technique.  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:02, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Fringe medical topics are notable. The removal of sources is troubling and based on QuackGuru's name I am going to suspect that they are trying to push a POV on Wikipedia. 216.16.239.98 (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2016 (UTC) (striking per note below Jytdog (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC))
 * Note. 216.16.239.98 has been blocked for either a block evader/sockpuppet or someone editing logged out to avoid scrutiny. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete (or selectively merge to Chiropractic). While there are sources for this topic, I do not think they are sufficiently extensive or independent of the subject as required by WP:NFRINGE but that this is rather a topic for which the discussion is "in-universe" for chiropractic. It would thus be very difficult to construct a properly neutral article giving us the views of the "wider world" as WP:VALID wants. Alexbrn (talk) 00:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Alexbrn - none of the sources are extensive (and those that are is primary source.  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources listed by Cunard cover the subject extensively and independently, with several sources giving multiple paragraph descriptions. Valoem   talk   contrib  21:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems clear from the insurance source material that the technique is considered experimental. I don't think there are any medical claims made in the article as I write. But is it notable? Of Cunard's sources, all but the "Bullshit" source are local coverage of local practitioners. None of them are strong evidence of notability of the practice itself. One could claim that the number of articles, like the number of "providers" on the Koren website indicate that it is notable, but it seems like a close call. I believe that the WP:FRINGE sentence "The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents" applies. This really focuses us on the insurer statements. One could claim that if the technique was very uncommon, the insurers would not have a policy against overing it. But are three enough (although Aetna is massive)? It's a close call for me still, will dig in further. Chris vLS (talk) 23:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Chrisvls, there is a small problem with sourcing left. The first part "Because of lack of evidence of efficacy,"[unreliable medical source?] requires a MEDRS compliant source. Technically, all the sources are poor quality and do not show any notability whatsoever. It can be selectively merged into Chiropractic treatment techniques. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If it gets merged ("selectively" or otherwise), then it must not be deleted, because of licensing/attribution requirements. A statement that says "X insurance company decided not to cover it because of its experimental/lack of proof of efficacy" does not require a MEDRS-compliant source (even if we assume that this isn't FRINGE and therefore the rules for such claims should be relaxed).  "Here's their reason for refusing to pay" is a business fact, not a biomedical one.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User talk:QuackGuruOops! I just saw this here, after writing about it on the talk page! Take a look, I think I get your point, let me know what you think of the proposal, it's in accord with the way User:WhatamIdoing is thinking about it . . . thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Does deletion help -  Best we confront the problems and explain them to our readers with links to reliable info over deletion. We are here to educate people not leave them in the dark by not explaining  a thing on a subject that clearly is covered by the media.  -- Moxy (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Chiropractic. I have finally concluded that giving KST is own article gives undue weight to the subject. It's common enough that the insurance sources are denying it, making it worth a mention as a experimental or non-mainstream theory. But if due weight compelled a whole article, we would expect to see significant discussion of the merits/content/evidence in independent, reliable sources. (As mentioned in my comment above, Cunard's sources are mostly not supportive of notability of KST. Bravo for finding them, though!) Chris vLS (talk) 05:29, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Notability not demonstrated. Exact nature of the technique is not even part of the current content (apart from the use of some device). Anything of relevance can be merged with chiropractic. JFW &#124; T@lk  08:37, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * JFW the version you saw was a butchered version and unfair to judge the merits of the article. This is the [current version]. Valoem   talk   contrib  16:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The "weak" part is not coming from a doubt about sourcing, but about WP:V: I feel we have no reliable source for a sentence like "this technique has not been proven efficient", and none of the alternatives look attractive. (1) not saying anything about the lack of validation may mislead readers, (2) saying "chiropractors disagree with the technique" can be misleading as it implies chiropractic itself is serious medicine (which it is not), and (3) saying "no reliable scientific study has been made" is borderline POV as it implies that because it was not scientifically studied it is necessary bollocks (which is an erroneous reasoning even if the conclusion is probably valid). If no suitable formulation can be found, then deletion is warranted regardless of notability.
 * For notability, the insurance sources look enough to me (they are not medical but that is irrelevant): they implicitly establish that the technique is in a relatively wide use (clients have been asking for them) and that makes for a presumption of notability. Cunard's sources help a bit too, but I would not base a GNG claim purely on them.
 * If GNG is satisfied, substandard sources can be used for the details of the technique (e.g. if Korren's site says that the KST works better under a full moon, it is a reliable source for "proponents of the KST claim it is affected by moon phases" - see WP:RSCONTEXT). Tigraan (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, and a merge with chiropractic as proposed above would be good if it wasn't for the fact that there is debate about whether this technique is chiropractic in nature. Sounds like How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? to me, but the debate exists so such a merge would be POV. Tigraan (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the joining in Tigraan . . . it's a good point. I think that there's sufficient sourcing -- actually all of the sources but Koren -- to place it under chiropratic. Just in case that's your main hesitation to merge . . . Cheers! Chris vLS (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I still believe that given the subject notability and sources, a separate article may be justified. Valoem   talk   contrib  16:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This article has been around since 2015 and is still a WP:STUB. This may suggest that there is a lack of WP:Reliable sources. While WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, keep this in mind.  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 18:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, looking through WP:STUB:

If a stub has little verifiable information, or if its subject has no apparent notability, it may be deleted or be merged into another relevant article.  Programming Geek  (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 19:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No !vote Just to be clear:  My participation in this discussion is focused solely on the mis-representation of policies and guidelines.  I have no opinion about whether the English Wikipedia should have a separate article about this subject.  IMO it's a matter of editorial judgement, and all outcomes – keep, merge, delete – are potentially acceptable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2016 (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.