Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NUCCA


 * 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. I have to discount the "efficacy" argument, and so we have a majority, but not a consensus, for the view that the sources are insufficient for notability.  Sandstein  08:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

NUCCA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatant chiropractic quackery, most sources are fringe that link to the Chiropractic Association. I see little to no independent coverage HealthyGirl (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. It is a non-notable technique. It is a self-promotional article containing very little independent sources that show no notability. The Grostic technique is relevantly unknown. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 11:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of efficacy. I think it can be reverted to a redirect to Chiropractic, because I find it useful to have a clue what the term relates to. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep there is a clear bias against chiropractic techniques. These biases do not override policy., , , , and tons more sources. , , .  Valoem   talk   contrib  02:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. "Blatent....quackery", "No evidence of efficacy", and "fringe" (I often hear that one) are not legitimate arguments. Notability is the only thing necessary, and fringe sources can be used to document such notability, per WP:PARITY. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also no policy based reason for deletion. Valoem   talk   contrib  03:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Does deletion help?--Moxy (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policy is that we should cite reliable sources and not give undue weight to fringe views, most of the sources listed above are articles written by chiropractors or fringe proponents. If we cite only those sources, then how is it possible to have a neutral article? This place would turn into a crackpot haven. We need independent secondary sources preferably written by medical experts, not written by chiropractors themselves. As for the claim "fringe sources can be used to document such notability", I have never heard of this before. If notability is to be established then reliable academic, critical or skeptical works should be cited, not sources written by pseudoscience proponents. There are not enough reliable sources to warrant an entire article in this case. Having an article that uses sources written by only chiropractors is in violation of WP:FRINGE, WP:IS, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. HealthyGirl (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather silly to consider all chiropractic sources as primary. The sources I listed are not proponents of NUCCA only chiropractics. This argument is not even wrong as it could be applied to anything. We could say with this logic that all biology sources are primary sources for biological topics. Valoem   talk   contrib  21:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * There is no problem using primary sources for mainstream biology topics because they are not fringe. We are dealing here with a fringe topic. On fringe topics we should not be giving undue weight to primary sources. Look around at most fringe topics on Wikipedia, primary sources are not in majority on those articles (see for example Homeopathy, Radionics or Water memory. We have to cite reliable independent sources, most primary sources when it comes to fringe topics are written by charlatans or pseudoscience proponents pushing nonsense. You basically want this NUCCA on Wikipedia to be sourced to writings by only chiropractics. Like I said this runs into problems with NPOV on Wikipedia. HealthyGirl (talk) 21:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * , there are sources which are clearly not chiropractics.  Valoem   talk   contrib  21:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Your first link is a personal interview with a chiropractor Jason Langslet, your second link is a video of the chiropractor Devin Luzod... These are not independent sources. How about you find six to ten reliable sources written by medical experts or skeptics who are obviously not chiropractors, maybe then you have a valid case of keeping this article. Until then, I have nothing else to say on this and will not be further responding. Take care. HealthyGirl (talk) 21:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you try doing a search for example this source is perfectly fine and yes we can use chiropractics sources such as this it is not a primary source, although there are some medical claims in the article which needs to be removed. Chiropractics is a huge field it seems you are forgetting that.  Valoem   talk   contrib  21:47, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Appears to fail WP:GNG- not subject of significant, reliable, independent coverage. PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CONTN a quick news search for "National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association" reveals at least a half dozen features by RS publishers. 009o9Disclosure(Talk) 04:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.  The book notes: "NUCCA is a unique, much gentler and more precise form of cervical chiropractic adjustment advocated by an active educational organization called the National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association, whose members focus on their work on the relationship between the upper cervical spine and the central nervous system—including the brain stem. Carefully controlled contact on the first vertebrae in the neck (C-1) is designed to correct misalignment of the upper spine. The C-1 vertebrae, also called the Atlas, is a small ring-shaped bone located between the top of the spine and the base of the skull. NUCCA practitioners believe that correcting 'Atlas Subluxation Complex Syndrome' has positive benefits on the nerves that control the body's vital functions, movement, sensation, and even behavior. I experienced periodic NUCCA sessions for chronic occipital neuralgia and felt it to be of significant value, but with these important cautions: The practitioner must have extraordinary skill, he or she must use the technique very carefully, and only in very specific situations involving misalignment of the C-1 vertebrae. To learn more about the NUCCA technique, see the website www.nucca.org/."  The book notes: "National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association In early 1966, Dr. Ralph R. Gregory was contacted by a group of Grostic doctors who requested that he teach seminars because of his affiliation with John F. Grostic. That same year, the first seminar was held at the Howard Johnson Motel in Monroe, Michigan. As a result, the National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association Inc. (NUCCA) was formed on April 16, 1966. The first elected president was Dr. Irvin Mathias of Indiana, but Gregory has always been considered to be the leader of this organization (Fig. 1-28). In 1986, U.S. President Ronald Reagan honored NUCCA and Gregory for their great contribution to the chiropractic profession and raising the quality of care for patients. The National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Research Association, Inc. (NUCCRA) was formed in 1971 for the purpose of conducting and disseminating research related to upper cervical care. NUCCRA began publishing the Upper Cervical Monograph in 1973, and it is still in current circulation. This non-peer-reviewed journal has been used as their primary research publication. Unfortunately, little has been published in peer-reviewed, indexed literature related to the efforts of NUCCRA. There are presently some projects that are being produced with plans for publication in scientific research journals. The NUCCA group uses exclusive manual upper cervical adjusting, which is a modification of the Grostic hand adjustment. Some of the accomplishments of NUCCA and NUCCRA include the following: (i) development of the double-pivot-point X-ray analysis, (ii) development of various analytical instruments used in the radiographic analysis, (iii) development of the triceps pull manual adjustment, (iv) design and development of the Anatometer posture distortion measuring instrument, (v) design and development of the multiple support headpiece, and (vi) classification of four basic types of upper cervical subluxation patterns. Dr. Marshall Dickholtz Sr. is a 1956 graduate of PSC and has been instrumental in various developments of NUCCA, particularly in the area of radiographic procedures. Dicholtz received the Daniel David Palmer Scientific Award from PCC in 1994. NUCCA is currently part of the core curriculum of Life Chiropractic College West. In addition, NUCCA is taught as an elective at PCC."  The book's snippet view notes: "... It is known as NUCCA and is a method practised by members of the National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association. NUCCA was invented in the 1940s by two chiropractors, Ralph Gregory and John Grostic. It is, in essence, no-touch chiropractic. As one practitioner says 'The NUCCA Spinal Correc- ..."  The book discusses NUCCA in detail. NUCCA is mentioned on 25 different pages of the book which does a literature review of NUCCA.   The book notes: "Today a number of upper cervical chiropractic technique groups participate in the annual Upper Cervical Spine Conference, including but not limited to the National Upper Cervical Chriopractic Association (NUCCA), Grostic technique, and the Aacademy of Upper Cervical Chiropractic Organizations. Paper and clinical investigations of upper cervical techniques are typically published in the Chiropractic Research Journal or the Palmer Research Journal. Many or most advocates of the upper cervical techniques today hold that upper cervical corrective adjustments are critically important, regardless of the patient's symptomatology, when upper cervical corrective adjustments are critically important, regardless of the patient's symptomatology, when upper cervical misalignment is found. For example, the Upper Cervical Monograph is published by the NUCCA, whose members specialize in upper cervical chiropractic adjustments, usually to the exclusion of other adjustive techniques (134). Although NUCCA was originally founded by Ralph Gregory, its members recognize the work of B. J. Palmer and John Grostic Sr. as laying the foundation for the technique (viz., Palmer's Hole In One technique; see Chapter 2). NUCCA maintains an interesting research-oriented Web site (www.NUCCA.com)." There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow NUCCA to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC) </li></ul>
 * Fringe theories says: "For a fringe theory to be considered notable 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." NUCCA has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Robert A. Leach is a chiropractic practitioner, as is Kirk Eriksen, these are not independent sources of the subject. The book Suckers is reliable but only briefly discussed NUCCA on one page of the book (p. 152). HealthyGirl (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   17:50, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It is fine for the authors to have chiropractic affiliations if they are writing for reliable publishers independent from the chiropractic industry like Demos Medical Publishing (a Springer Publishing imprint) and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (a Wolters Kluwer imprint). Reliable publishers independent from the chiropractic industry are independent sources. Cunard (talk) 21:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure who is correct. See Wikipedia_talk:Fringe_theories. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Poorly sourced, fails WP:GNG. Reads a little like a spammy advert for the procedure. LK (talk) 06:32, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

<ul><li>Here are more sources I found about NUCCA:<ol> <li> The book notes: "NUCCA, Grostic, 'Hole-In-One' Chiropractic B.J. Palmer, a chiropractor, strongly believed that the first two cervical vertebrae (C1/2) were the primary cause of all disease; hence, the theory of treatment he named 'hole-in-one'. In 1943, Grostic, another chiropractor, developed instruments to measure the misalignment of C1 and the cervical spine in three planes of movement. He was the first to x-ray C1 post-treatment to evaluate the degree of correction made by the adjustment/manipulation. In 1966, Gregory founded the National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association (NUCCA) in order to expand research and education on upper cervical spin chiropractic techniques. This treatment can have direct effects on the myofascial, neural and articular system. An assessment by a NUCCA chiropractor includes an X-ray analysis of the first two vertebrae in the neck, as well assessments of the symmetry of the cranium, shoulders, pelvis and leg length. With the patient in side lying, the involved vertebra is positioned so as to allow the proper force vector to be applied with a constant and firm pressure through the side of the wrist (pisiform) until the vertebra is felt to be corrected (Foran 1999a,b). Currently, only chiropractors can be taught, and subsequently perform, the NUCCA technique. It is the authors' opinion that the findings in the cervical (C1/2) and lumbar spine regions can be adaptive or secondary to lesions within the pelvis, thorax and cranium and that these lesions should, therefore, be treated first."</li> <li> The book notes: "En 1966, dos años después de la muerte de Grostic, nace la National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association Inc. (Asociación Quiropráctica Nacional de las Cervicales Superiores, NUCCA). Al amparo de esta asociación profesional se desarrollan nuevos protocols de análisis y tratamiento de subluxaciones. La importancia del trabajo es tal que es común hablar, caso lingüístico rarísimo, del método NUCCA o técnica NUCCA."</li> <li> The book notes: "National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association The National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association (NUCCA) was formed to promote techniques to reduce the detrimental effects of the atlas subluxation complex (ASC). NUCCA-approved techniques must fulfil specific criteria, including measurable evidence of the existence of vertebral misalignment, proof of the effects of the misalignments on the neurological component, a system or method of adjusting misalignments to or toward normal position, predetermined and controlled vectors, measurable and physical proof that the vertebral subluxation does in fact detrimentally influence the human organism, and measurable proof that reduction of the subluxation manifests itself as reduction in the physical distortions."</li> <li> The article notes: "A small number of chiropractors specialize in aligning just the atlas vertebra, and are part of the National Upper Cervical Chiropractor Association or NUCCA. The adjustment is called the NUCCA technique, and is very gentle, with no bone popping like other spine and back adjustments."</li> <li> The article notes: "He uses a technique developed by the National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association. It involves making adjustments to only the upper neck area, to the first cervical bone called the C-1 or Atlas. Stehmeier said his adjustments are quite gentle with no twisting or popping. 'What we try to do is align the skull with the rest of the cervical spine.' ... Dr. Don Nixdorf, the executive director of the B.C. Chiropractic College, said while NUCCA is not widely practiced, it is an accepted chiropractic technique. It has also been around for over 60 years."</li> </ol>Cunard (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * Chiropractics is an extremely large field using chiropractics sources may be considered secondary. I am going to for his opinion regarding this subject.  Valoem   talk   contrib  06:12, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * i'm afraid I won't be of much help, for I think this borderline. What I' d like to see is details on the various techniques in this field, not divided up by the names of the people who promote them or the trade name they use. I would be interested in a a way of comparing the different practices, not treating them one by one. But merging them excessively leads in practice inevitably to loss of information, because we have no good way of determining the content of an article, as compared to f\determining its existence. DGG ( talk ) 06:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I fixed the article removed medical claims and added information from the sources found. Is it better?  Valoem   talk   contrib  07:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * , I did a little further cleanup. But I think you may have removed a little too much--it is impossible to tell from the current version of the article what the chiropractor using the method actually does--the previous version was considerably clearer about that. I don't think it's promotional to describe the subject.  DGG ( talk ) 03:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Description is not the same as promotion, and a good description is essential for any article, including those about quackery.
 * I also did some reworking/restoring to the lead. NUCCA does not refer to the technique, only the organization. The date is 1966. We were using both 1966 and 1996. We don't use titles like "Dr." I added a couple details and wikilinks, and added a primary source, as allowed for such content. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * and I 100% agree, unfortunately I am trying to compromise right now a string of chiropractic article are being forcably merged right now I was hoping the outcome of this AfD may be prevent rampant WP:IDONTLIKEITs from coming to fruition.  Valoem   talk   contrib  14:57, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * delete evidence of efficacy is lacking--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ozzie10aaaa, that's an irrelevant argument. The mission of Wikipedia is to document the sum total of human knowledge as mentioned in RS. We know that includes lots of facts, opinions, lies, conspiracies, and BS. Our job is to document all of it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * if I'm not mistaken another editor (Mikael Häggström ) made a similar comment,..(though I do see your point, it also lacks WP:RS...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of independent sources. Possibly a mention is due on the main chiropractic techniques article, but only that it exists and lacks scientific support. Carl Fredik   💌 📧 07:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment. Mass OR was added during the AFD. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please review the history see here, I removed that OR but it was requested to be added so I undid my remove. There was a discussion that said the article was better with that information. Valoem   talk   contrib  22:01, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The entire section is unsourced. How is the article better with WP:OR? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is probably better to have it removed. Regardless there are clearly reliable sources here. Valoem   talk   contrib  01:34, 21 May 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.