Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Chiropractic Alliance


 * 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. After three relists and plenty of input there is still no consensus either way. Michig (talk) 09:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

World Chiropractic Alliance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Subject fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Has links but Relies on references to primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject.. A google search shows only press releases and insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Hu12 (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was previously a vehicle for criticism, but has been somewhat whitewashed. I suspect a previous version that is improved might be better. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hold on, this AfD violates procedure. There has been no serious discussion on the article's talk page, and an AfD is not the proper place to solve any deficiencies. A discussion should be started there and editors given a chance to fix the matter. If that fails, THEN start an AfD, but only AFTER due warning there. Please delete this page and start over at the talk page. This happens to be a very notable (within chiropractic) chiropractic organization which protects the original (pseudoscientific) chiropractic philosophies. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. There is no requirement that anyone discuss on the talk page before bringing to AfD. Technically, there is no absolute requirement that you even look for sources.  As long as the AfD is in good faith, it meets procedural requirements.  We aren't a bureaucracy.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 16:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You are both correct. I wasn't aware that it had been tagged for so long and just saw this AfD pop up on my watchlist. Neither did I notice that notability was part of the tag. Procede. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The WP:BURDEN lies with the editors of the article and may freely edit the article during an AfD. The fact that notability and refimprove have been tagged on that article since June 2011 has given the editors a significant portion of time to improve the necessary sources that meet the criteria specified in WP:NGO. In no such time has any notable third party sources been added and this AfD is fully valid. Mkdw talk 09:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 09:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 09:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've added to the article a few references to academic sources from outside the world of chiropractic. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 21:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Substantial additions made, so hopefully we can close this AfD as a save. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 00:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Looking at the new sourcing, I see mentions and links to the general topic but not this organization. Seems like source padding, which is fine for facts I suppose, but doesn't support the notion of notability.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 00:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Dennis, would you please point to any edits/sources which meet your description? I haven't done such a thing on purpose and want my edits to be up to par. Thanks...and Happy New Year! BTW, notability will be mostly in the world of chiropractic. The organization is quite notable there because of its controversial nature. They are always in a fight with the rest of the profession. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The organization may exist, however asserting that they are "quite notable" without proof is unlikely to convince anyone. Sources may have been added, however insufficient and trivial coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH.--Hu12 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hu12, they are quite notable within the chiropractic world. Outside of that world they aren't notable. Of course when chiropractic organizations have been invited to send representatives to official government meetings, they have been invited. I could find such references, if that would help. Personally I have always despised this organization because of their promotion of the original chiropractic quackery, but that happens to be one of the things that make them notable to all, both within and without chiropractic, who deal with the profession. They are fringe, just as chiropractic is fringe. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, the burden to demonstrate which sources demonstrate notability is upon you, and is a much shorter list. Perhaps you can point to those instead.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 18:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Dennis, my request still stands. You wrote above: "mentions and links to the general topic but not this organization." Which ones would those be? If I added them, they should name the organization or its officers. Did I make a mistake? Please provide the wordings, refs or diffs. You made the claim, so the burden of proof is on you. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I had some time and went through ALL the references, and the statement that "mentions and links to the general topic but not this organization" is not true. ALL references refer to the WCA and/or its officers. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A source that "mentions" the organization is worthless for determining notability. Sources should be significant coverage to establish notability.  A mention is passing doesn't fit the standard for inclusion.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  Join WER 21:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've developed a bit more, and also included sources showing they are notable enough to be recognized by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, which included them on their "Chiropractic Advisory Committee," which was used to determine how to include chiropractic services in the VA. If recognition by the U.S. government isn't notable enough for inclusion here, then I guess I don't understand you. You'll need to reword our rules for inclusion to make it clear that recognition (not mere "mention") by the U.S. government is not a "notable" thing. You seem to be stretching "significant coverage" far beyond what the wording implies, which is to prevent OR.-- Brangifer (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - having read the discussion above, the article (of course) and many of the references, I'm not really convinced the subject meets WP:ORGDEPTH. Honours given to organisation members (like one member being appointed to a Government committee) don't really confer notability on the other organisations of which that person happens to also be a member. A good number of the other organisations of which committee members are also concurrently members are not covered here, nor should they be on that basis. Remember, the subject organisation was not appointed, a member was. That would contribute to the notability of the individual, not the other organisations with which she is affiliated, in my opinion. Significant coverage requirements do exist to prevent the need for original research to extract notability (by falsely extrapolating substantive "facts" from directory listings or passing mentions) but it is also used as a (subjective) standard to determine if reliable sources (news media and the like) consider the subject notable enough to require/justify coverage. In this case, the article seems to be supported by plenty of sources that verify the importance of the issues in which the subject is involved, but few provide the depth of coverage in reliable sources that we would expect for a notable organisation. However, I am conscious of the need to present both sides of particular issues in the interests of a neutral encyclopedia and that coverage which does exist suggests it is the counter-voice to a more broadly accepted view. I would still like to see more coverage but I'm not about to suggest that a valid argument for keeping the article absolutely does not exist. Stalwart 111  01:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, her appointment does give her a certain sort of notability, but it only happened because she was representing the WCA. The VA needed representatives from chiropractic organizations, and she was chosen as their representative, IOW THEY are notable, not her. I had never heard of her before this happened, but the WCA was and is always creating controversy in the profession. They, with the ICA, are the profession's "problem" children. The only reason they are not better known is for the reason I have stated - they are an organization pushing an increasingly fringe (yet held by a significant minority) agenda within a fringe profession - ergo, they would be totally unknown to anyone who isn't familiar with the profession, and not mentioned in the mainstream press, but they are quite well-known to anyone who is familiar with chiropractic, and usually mentioned in the same breath as another group (the oldest chiro org), the International Chiropractors Association (ICA). The ICA also pushes the original quackery of vertebral subluxation. Progressive members of the profession wish that both groups would disappear, like the dinosaurs they are, yet they succeed because they are preaching the doctrine of pure and original chiropractic. Religious beliefs die hard. If we delete these articles, the subject of chiropractic will be whitewashed here. I do not accuse anyone here of such an agenda, but am just stating the consequences of hasty deletions. This is a FRINGE subject, and as such we need to exercise caution. Notability in the FRINGE world of chiropractic has been established. If we continue to provide more evidence, this will look like a total hit/smear job, simply because most of what they do is wacko fringe stuff. I think the few mentions are good enough. I'm not interested in restoring this article to the hit job it once was, or to the sales brochure it was for a while.. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I get where you're coming from and DGG has expanded on the point I made further. I'm still not convinced but I think it's a better argument than any suggestion this subject meets coverage-based notability criteria. Sorry, but regardless of which is marginally more notable, you'll not convince me the subject gains notability from one member's appointment. Except for where the WCA claims as much, I can't see anywhere where USDVA says she was appointed because of her membership, rather than her personal expertise. Had they done so, a related profile of the organisation would likely allow it to meet coverage-based notability criteria. But they haven't, so it doesn't... in my opinion. Stalwart 111  06:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete the article does look like it's been improved during the AFD, and that's something we should always encourage, but I'm just not seeing that this passes our organisation notability guidelines. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Andrew, please explain what is lacking. How does a fringe organization establish notability? Multiple mentions in many different ways in the publications of its profession is usually considered sufficient. Representation on a government advisory committee for that profession is above and beyond that. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep I'm supporting this on the basis of NPOV. We need to have some degree of balanced coverage of the various factions of a movement, and this faction is substantial enough to include; an article on their organization is a good way of doing it. They seem the most significant organization of their sort. I'm not sure about the neutrality of the article; the last sections in particular seem to deal in excessive detail with some minor non-current matters.   DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Is the information accurate? Apparently, yes. Is the information presented verifiable? Yes. Is Wikipedia better off with or without this piece? With it. I am firmly in the "Chiropractic is Snake Oil" camp, but that shouldn't matter a whit. This appears to be a legitimate, albeit highly opinionated and aggressive, professional organization. Carrite (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I note that nobody in this discussion has yet addressed the sources from the University of North Carolina Press, the  Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and Milbank Quarterly that I added before this was relisted for the first time. None of those are in any way fringe or pro-chiropractic sources. Is it really too much to ask that participants in AfD discussions address previous comments directly, rather than us all talking past each other? I would be perfectly happy to see those sources debunked, but not to have them ignored. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, that's true - the sources have mostly been addressed in the collective rather than individually. I read those sources (the linked ones) and thought they were good, solid sources for verifying certain claims. But I didn't think they offered much by way of in-depth (significant) coverage. But the point I made (one that has since been made) is that other criteria might be valid, given the information presented can be verified (even by a collection of passing mentions). Not sure what you mean by people talking past each other, though. Stalwart 111  21:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Phil, you are correct, and I fear I have contributed to the confusion. While fringe organizations are often ignored by sources outside the internal debates, these are sources that have noted the WCA's role and it's POV. Good finds. The sources are solid and clearly reliable. WCA is certainly more notable than minor cartoon characters which have their whole articles here. BTW, the article by Homola was first published at Medscape, before being hosted at SRAM.
 * 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.