Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor of Chiropractic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 cleanup. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an acrimonious debate, with an article that has had deletion and reversion, people who feel very strongly for and against the subject, and where the AFD debate has had to be tagged due to concerns over meatpuppetry and solicitation. In this context it's important to note that AFD debates are based upon policy-based points and evidence presented, both in the article and by contributors in this discussion (deletion policy refers). Arguments quickly covered by policy include:

  1. It is geographically limited (user:Shot_info)
    Geographic inadequacies (and other deficiencies common to new stubby articles) are best remedied by expansion, not by deleting the article (WP:DP refers). In general, deletion is not the appropriate treatment for a concern over lack of balance. (If it inherently cannot be written for some reason, due to scope or balance reasons, then deletion may apply, but there is no evidence at all presented in this AFD suggesting that a neutral and geographically appropriate article on the D.C. qualification, based upon verifiable reliable sources, could physically not be written if desired.)
  2. "This should be about the discussion of the article and not vote counting" (user:QuackGuru)
    I concur, per WP:DP, WP:DPR, WP:AFD, etc, (see above). Canvassing and canvassing issues can be ignored, policy-related issues and other evidence regarding the article's AFD debate are what counts here. (Editors referenced also have significant editing history.)
  3. Personal views of "promotion" and "trash" (user:QuackGuru)
    These are not policy related matters. Per WP:AFD deletion is decided based upon policy based issues, and evidence, not personal opinion.
  4. Delete to give a "clean start" or remove histories (suggestion by user:QuackGuru)
    Wikipedia does not delete pages merely to give them a "clean start" or remove their reference history. Either the subject "Doctor of Chiropractic" is suitable for Wikipedia, in which case new versions overwrite old ones (which are kept for historical reference purposes only) or it is not (in which case it is deleted or changed to a redirect).


Having covered policy, the points made during the discussion are fairly straightforward.

  • The degree/qualification, is not the same as the profession, or the practice (user:Scottalter, supported by others) I concur. This doesn't mean that "D.C." is automatically notable; it just means that there is a legitimate case to address whether it is notable.
  • Nobody has come forward with a case that D.C. is not notable in degree terms. (ie that some degrees are notable and others are not). There is no notability guide on degrees, but I think it would be a hard case to make, that a "doctor of..." degree which many people could get, or do have, and have worked for, and the details of what is involved, are not of fairly wide interest.
  • There is broad consensus that the article is (or was: it's been worked on) deficient - either it contains too much overlap material, or contains material that duplicates others. Significant progress has been made in removing material that was not about the D.C. degree (before AFD current version). Also see nominator's comment before AFD: "Almost completely unsourced repetition of most of the information in Chiropractic ... very little if any information [of note]" (user:Viridae) However editors are encouraged to improve articles during AFD, and this one is now has a significant and sizeable paragraph on the degree, and much of the off-topic text has been deleted. There's plenty of valid information that could be added - what courses involve, reputable schools, aptitudes needed (if verifiable!), different parties' views on the degree as a qualification, are obvious ones. The article does have paragraphs on post-degree training, and background on the profession which may or may not be relevant to this article, but that's for future editorial discussion. Either way the question here is simply whether the article on D.C. presently meets (or could relatively easily meet) Wikipedia standards for article inclusion. I don't see any evidence suggesting it couldn't, and in its present state it evidences that an article on the degree is viable, even if only in stub form.
  • "The keep voters have mainly conceded it is trash, a promo ad, and somewhat problematic. They say keep but everything else they said means delete" (user:QuackGuru) I don't agree that this is a good representation of the views of keep voters. A more common viewpoint is that the article, if trimmed back and started from a stub, could work. User:Antelan, user:Shot_info, user:DGG, user:Scottalter, user:Justanother, and others have expressed this view one way or another. User:Levine2112] makes the suggestion that the article on D.M.might be a good guide. Even user:QuackGuru states "Let the current article be deleted and start a new article" (no obvious need for waiting a "month or two")

    The first paragraph as it stands tends to show that an article or encyclopedic stub on the degree is possible. Deletion policy strongly encourages improvement of poor articles rather than deletion where practical and there is reasonable potential for an encyclopedic article.
  • There is potential duplication with Chiropractic education. Views divide whether this should be a separate article, or the latter article fully covers this one too (which should be merged into it). The point is well made that there is a distinction between "Chiropractic education" (the education required of people in order to become a chiropractor) and "Doctor of Chiropractic" (the title/degree and the attributes of those who possess it). Scottalder This also covers the question of POV forking (does it cover material which is properly the subject of another article). See below on this one.

On the basis of the above points, it seems there is evidence or consensus that 1/ the qualification per se is encyclopedic in its own right as a degree, 2/ the article (when originally AFD'ed) was badly deficient and may well have been off topic and slanted or even a POV fork, but this has greatly been improved now. 3/ There is a good case that an encyclopedic article or stub on the D.C. degree is achievable, and a good paragraph on that degree (if not more) as a starting point. 4/ Editorial consensus seems to have formed that the article can be made more to the point by trimming back and writing specifically about the degree. 5/ Limitations related to geography and the like are not policy related deletion grounds if they can be rectified and an encyclopedic article or stub is reasonably practical to achieve (which it clearly is).

The only remaining question is whether this article is bound to be a rehash of Chiropractic education, or whether two articles should exist (for the degree, and for the professional training). There are good grounds to think it might not be a rehash, and a number of editors have stated an intent or wish to recast this as an article about the degree, separate from the professional training. Given effort to date, I'm not prepared to conclude right now, that it's doomed to be a rehash. It is more in line with policy's encouragement of improvement to support the cleaning up of this one, and set this concern aside until we actually see whether or not it is a duplicate and rehash. (Future relisting or merge discussion would be reasonable responses if so, or dispute resolution if roadblocked by dispute.) For now, this discussion has not provided sufficient evidence for deletion, and it's premature to prejudge that outcome.

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

[edit] Doctor of Chiropractic

Doctor of Chiropractic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is an almost completely unsourced repetition of most of the information in Chiropractic. I tried just redirecting it a couple of weeks ago, but that was objected to so it comes here. There is very little if any information that can be merged as far as I can see, so I see no harm in deleting this article and replacing it with a redirect. ViridaeTalk 23:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep Keep and stubbify - While I agree that the current Doctor of Chiropractic is not a great article, there needs to be an article on the D.C. degree separate from the field of Chiropractic. Consider any other field in which one can earn a degree. There are usually 3 articles - one about the degree required, one about the field itself, and one about the occupation. Compare this to Doctor of Medicine/Medicine/Physician(/Surgeon), Registered nurse/Nursing/Nurse, Juris Doctor/Law/Lawyer, Master of Business Administration/Business/Businessperson, etc. All fields that require degrees to practice are in this format. Doctor of Chiropractic needs to be heavily edited and referenced, but not deleted. Chiropractic is a very long article. Possibly, the sections of "Chiropractic’s approach to healthcare" and "Education, licensing, and regulation" could be moved into "Doctor of Chiropractic" to help the article. Also, if there is enough content, some parts could be moved to a new article, Chiropractor, to go along with the schema above. --Scott Alter 01:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Per Scott Alter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Levine2112 (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Viridae, and not only is it just recycled (POVFORK?) it appears to concentrate just on the DC in the US to the exclusion to the rest of the world, something other articles at least have attempted to address (in varying degrees of success). Shot info 01:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osteopathic_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=141078473 Levine2112 made this comment to canvas for votes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osteopathic_medicine&diff=next&oldid=141078473 Here is the reply by Scott Alter.
This should be about the discussion of the article and not vote counting. Thanks. QuackGuru 01:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Now really, this behaviour is aytpical of Levine. Shot info 01:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Whether or not my opinion was canvased, you should consider my argument instead of outright dismissing it. Just because the article is bad doesn't mean it should be deleted. It needs to be expanded in content and it needs a world-wide view. Also, polling is not a substitute for discussion. No one has brought up the points I mentioned yet, and they should be addressed before the article would be deleted or merged. Also, not that it should matter, but I wrote my comments here before reading http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Osteopathic_medicine&diff=prev&oldid=141078473.. It took me more that 4 minutes to look up the references and write my opinion above. --Scott Alter 02:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Scott Alter. We plan on revamping the medically related articles systematically, and Scott has laid this plan out nicely in Talk:Osteopathic medicine. I see no reason why the same shouldn't happen for chiropractic. The degree and the field are distinct; both can have informative articles. Antelan talk 03:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Doesn't matter - It's going to get rewritten entirely either way. An article by this title should exist, but this isn't it. Antelan talk 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • As it stands the article is not about the degree at all, so that point is moot. If you wanted to create a degree article over the top of this one if this closes as delete then noone is going to stop you, but this article is pretty damn bad and not worth keeping at the moment. ViridaeTalk 04:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Agreed that it's not really about the DC degree, but that doesn't mean that an article about the degree by this title shouldn't exist. Also, this article isn't totally without merit (though almost overwhelmingly, I admit), so I believe some of the material could be salvaged to script a better article. Antelan talk 04:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
That may be so, but as it stands the article is worthy of deletion (or rather a merging and redirection). However if the advocates for a keep acutally improve the article, then there is hope for it. Until then the reasoning for a keep is at odds with policy. Shot info 05:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete There already is an article covering degrees in chiro.[1] We don't keep trash in mainspace. Wikipedia is not a trash dumpster. QuackGuru 04:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Scott Alter, but rewrite.--Hughgr 06:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete the present article; Certainly keep an article on the DC degree, but the present article is not on the degree. It's a general article on chiro., of distinctly lower quality than the main WP one. And I do not see a single word in it about chiro. education. I see nothing here that would be of help beyond what we have on the original article. I was in some doubt whether I should not have instead said Keep: stubbify to the first sentence, and start afreshDGG 07:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Why not "Keep: stubbify to the first sentence, and start afresh? I think we are all in agreement that:
  1. Most of this article is irrelevant to the D.C. degree
  2. Most of this article is duplicated elsewhere
  3. There should be an article about the D.C. degree
Since those for deletion have suggested that those against deletion should try to salvage it, would anyone mind if I gut the article? I would delete most of it, only leaving the relevant parts, and call it a stub for now. I have a feeling that if the article is simply redirected to Chiropractic, then no one will ever get around to writing the article on D.C. Also, for those who think Chiropractic education can take the place of Doctor of Chiropractic, my analogy to other professions can extend to this too. See Doctor of Medicine/Medical education/Medical school, Registered Nurse/Nurse education/Nursing school, Juris Doctor/Legal education/Law school, Master of Business Administration/Business education/Business school. If there are no objections by the end of the day, I'll start on this. --Scott Alter 14:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Do you get a free 'doctor of voodoo' bundled in with this free? How about a BSc in Fairy Spotting while we're at it? Nick mallory 07:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Scott, there already is a Doctor of Chiro type article. The Chiropractic education article covers the Doctor of Chiro article. Do you understand my point? That means all the keep votes are essentially nullified. Frankly, I can't see any valid reason to have this article. I have no idea what do you want to turn this article into. Moreover, we don't have article titled, Chiropractic 2. Two articles covering the same topic is very weird. As it stands, the keep votes are completely irrelevant. I recommend you reconsider your vote or come up with something that actually makes a little sense. I do not know what is the point in salvaging nothing worth salvaging. Everything is already covered elsewhere. What do you suggest the new stub article be called and what would it be about. Please explain. Anyhow, this article seems more like a promotional ad than a real article. Wikipedia is not a promotional machine. Agreed? QuackGuru 15:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
      • QuackGuru, I see your point, but I do not think you see mine (otherwise you wouldn't have questioned the relevancy of "votes" in favor of keeping the article). Here is a breakdown of the points raised:
  1. You say "Wikipedia is not a promotional machine".
    I agree.
  2. You think the Doctor of Chiropractic article is "trash" and "a promotional ad".
    I agree with you that it is. We all seem to be in agreement about this.
  3. I think there should be an article solely about the D.C. degree.
    Your counter point is that an article mentioning the degree exists as Chiropractic education, so an article about the D.C. degree is redundant.
    My counter counter point is that almost every other degree has its own article, in addition to an article about the education. See Academic degree#Examples of degrees and my examples from above. I am a big proponent of consistency and standardization. Even a few paragraphs about the degree could be sufficient. It doesn't need to duplicate information elsewhere. Surely there is more information about the D.C. degree than what is written at Chiropractic education. If content in "Chiropractic education" sufficiently describes the degree (which I'm not sure it does), maybe it is in the wrong place. "Chiropractic education" should describe the education required of people in order to become a chiropractor. "Doctor of Chiropractic" should be about the title/degree and the attributes of those who possess it. There is a difference between the two topics. Almost all the other professions and degrees on Wikipedia use this distinction to have separate articles about the education and degree(s) needed to perform the profession.
  4. You want the article deleted because the content is "trash" and "a promotional ad".
    I want to revise the article to describe the D.C. degree, keeping the name Doctor of Chiropractic.
    You still want the article deleted because the degree is mentioned in Chiropractic education.
    I still want to revise the article so it describes the D.C. degree. I would rather use the existing content as a starting point than starting again from scratch - even if it is just a sentence or two. For those who want to delete the article and then recreate an article of the same article but with a different topic, what's the point? If the article is just going to be recreated as soon as this one is deleted, why bother with deleting it at all? Shouldn't the content just be changed to reflect the title and desired focus of the article?
I think this should address all of the points raised so far. Do I correctly understand your point of view? Is everything now clear, in terms of my point of view? As an aside, I also think there should be an article about the MChiro degree. What makes this UK degree different from the US D.C. degree? I don't know. There are no articles on either degree. --Scott Alter 17:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, some DC's persue specialties in Neurology and Orthopedics, which should be mentioned.--Hughgr 17:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The term Doctor of Chiro seems to be an American term. The article Chiro of education article covers the "degrees" - internationally. The current article (Doctor of Chiro) is not specifically about the degree. Its a general (promotional) article on chiros. Note. > The criticism section was deleted. You can start with the Chiro of education article which is about degrees. There is no reason to have a forked article of Doctor of Chiro when the education article is the place to start. Do you want to change the content and start over? You have not pointed out anything worth keeping. If you remove all information that is not pertaining to degrees, you will have successfully deleted the article. I recommend you be bold. Delete eveything that is not relevant to the title. You will have nothing left. Maybe just a sentence or two that may need some rewording. That is essentially deleting the article. We should not keep the page history. Someone could revert back to the promotional nonsense again. That is why we have AFDs. Do you agree? Who knows what could happen five years from now with one simple revert. The best move is to delete now. Write whatever you want and start fresh. Though, it may be wiser to start at the Chiro of education article. If and when the Doctor of chiro content gets too long and is notable it can have its own page. Now then, do you understand?* QuackGuru 17:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps the chiro edu article should be merged with this one then.--Hughgr 19:22, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Nope. Wrong idea. This article (Doctor of Chiro) is poorly written and is not about degrees. Question. Is there anything in the current article worth merging into the education article or worth keeping as a stub. Any thoughts. Without a valid answer to the many questions* we have outlined, this entire article will be met with a red link. QuackGuru 22:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The intro contains a useful link, and the wording is only somewhat problematic (wow, that should never be a compliment). I don't care anymore - either this will get redlinked and totally rewritten, or it will just get totally rewritten. I know you've raised a "no history is good" point, but I don't really think it matters either way. Antelan talk 22:38, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What are you saying? It does matter. The keep voters have mainly conceded it is trash, a promo ad, and somewhat problematic. They say keep but everything else they said means delete. Its nonsense and is not about degrees. This is easy to understand. Am I wrong? QuackGuru 22:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm saying I changed my vote. You convinced me (which is probably rare on Wikipedia) so relish in this. Antelan talk 03:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Suggestion. The current Doctor of Chiropractic article be tagged with the appropriate label that the article reads poorly (essay, et cetera) and those with an active interest in it takes steps to rewrite it in a fashion similar to other doctor degrees. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
We all agree that the article is poorly written. None of us like the content. QuackGuru, I see that this is why you want the article deleted. The opposite side is saying that the text of the current article needs to be deleted, but there should be an article about the D.C. degree. People are becoming indifferent because that are tired of arguing with you. Despite the outcome of this AfD, there will ultimately be an article created, entitled "Doctor of Chiropractic", which will be about the degree. So the question becomes, if an article's content is inappropriate for the title, do you delete the entire article and then recreate a new one with the exact same name, or do you essentially blank the inappropriate article and just start with a new one? I would vote to just blank the current one and create new content - rather than deleting the article completely. For this reason, I just added {{Cleanup-rewrite}} and {{Incomplete}} to the article. Levine2112, if you can think of other tags appropriate to be added, then please add them. Once that aspect of the article has been fixed, we can remove the tag. Once all of the tags are gone, the article should be good. The reason QuackGuru currently gives to delete the article is solely to prevent someone in the future from reverting to the current (bad) version. Wikipedia does not work this way. The history is there for a reason. When any article is massively restructured (as this one will be), the prior history is not deleted. I will begin to edit the article to focus on the degree in the near future. --Scott Alter 01:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Your response is a declaration the current article is nonsensical. Am I wrong? There is no reason to have a forked article. As I said before, the chiro education article covers the doctor of chiro. There is no purpose to keeping this article. You have admitted the current version is poor. In fact, it is very poor. Lets delete it now. If the education article on doctor of chiro grows too big then another article is appropriate. You have not demonstratd any reason to keep the current article or explained why you need a forked article. Its already covered elsewhere. Nothing is worth keeping. If the article was kept, it would still be an unnecessary fork. Once all the tags would be removed in the future, you still would have two articles covering the same subject. Currently, if you deleted everything not related to the doctor of chiro, you may have next to nothing left. Please delete evey last word not related to the title of the article. What is doctor of chiro? Is it about the degrees? So, delete everything else. I mean. What are you waiting for? Be very bold. The article is tagged for clean up. Go for it. Lets see what we have to work with. Nothing but garbage. (One poorly written sentence or two?) Agreed? QuackGuru 02:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Guys, chillout... Shot info 02:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I've made a start back to the lede paragraph. Feel free to revert if people think consensus has not been achieved or if it's the incorrect (too early?) approach. Ta Shot info 02:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Most if not all of the lead has nothing whatsoever to do with the Doctor of chiro. QuackGuru 02:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That may be so, but there's always tomorrow :-) Shot info 02:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
If you deleted everything not related to the Doctor of chiro, you would have blanked the page. This is silly. Can anyone out there tell us what if anything is worth keeping. Be specific. Which sentence is about the title? The answer is, nothing. We have nothing to work with. QuackGuru 02:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't disagree with you, but we are here to edit an encyclopedia, so lets edit ;-) Shot info

Maybe we should all look at Doctor of Medicine and try to make the Doctor of Chiropractic article mimic its content in terms of format and what it covers. Sound like a plan? -- Levine2112 discuss 04:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Now its time for the editors who voted keep (and delete) to start a new article. I still want the page history to be deleted to start fresh. Let the current article be deleted and start a new article in a month or two. Create a subuserpage for editors to contribute to. Will this idea work? QuackGuru 05:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Any sort of degree type article format is suitable (IMHO). I am of the thinking that perhaps a paragraph should be started within Chiropractic_education (even if it is called Doctor of Chiropractic) and when it hits more than two paragraphs, then breaking it out into an article of its own (ie/ the normal Wikipedia proceedure). In the mean time DC can redirect to Chiro Ed. The only reason I suggest this at this point is that I have had a closer read thru Chiro Ed, and my mind sees it as a "better fit", especially the first three paragraphs, which really duplicate in my mind what this DC article should be (obviously this is my opinion, so feel free to flame away :-) Shot info 05:17, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete this as an apparent POV fork. There is pretty much nothing to be said about this degree that is not redundant to doctorate and chiropractic, other than attempts to bolster the perceived of qualifications in a controversial discipline. Guy (Help!) 13:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and clean up - Keep per logic of Scott Alter. --Justanother 17:07, 2 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.