Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hair analysis (alternative medicine)

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. — CharlotteWebb 05:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hair analysis (alternative medicine)

Article is a POV fork of hair analysis Lee Hunter 13:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - This is standard practice with disambiguation pages. In fact it is encouraged practice here. Hair analysis is used in widely different manners, and the alternative medicine use has little if any relation to the forensic and toxicological uses, therefore it is better to deal with it in its own article, which should make all advocates of this use pretty happy.

The hair analysis article was confusing because it contained widely different elements. Now the aspects related to alternative medicine practices are collected in one article and can be examined there. Anything dealing with the scientific aspects of hair analysis that are relevant to the new article can certainly be added if appropriate.

The new article is still open for inclusion of other POV, so it's not a POV fork, and in fact contains the original content. If only one POV had been moved it would be a different matter, but it contains all the relevant content that existed.

This complaint seems to be motivated more by the fact that this particular (mis)use of hair analysis has been criticized, and the one complaining doesn't like that fact, hence this AfD is a POV tactic and possible attempt to suppress opposing opinion. This is obviously nonsense because the article is open for more editing, and can present all significant POV.

Instead of complaining, I suggest that interested editors start doing their job, which is to edit and improve articles. -- Fyslee 21:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with hair analysis. While technically not a pov fork (the article contents here are expressed with a NPOV), there is no reason why this material shouldn't be on the hair analysis article. Both articles are referring to the same act. It's not as if the hair analysis article is too long to necessitate branching off sections into their own articles. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 21:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: Fyslee's comment and other keep arguments are persuasive. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - I fear you misunderstand the situation. This content was originally part of the hair analysis article, but it created confusion because the uses are so extremely different. It's practically like night and day. Therefore this subject deserves its own article where it can be dealt with more completely. In short, while both articles may be "referring to the same act", they are definitely NOT referring to its use for the same purpose. It is only this one that is questioned, and very seriously so at that. -- Fyslee 22:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I do not see this as a POV fork. One article is about use in the science of forensics, the other is about the pseudoscience of alternative medicine. It is similar to the distinction between aura (symptom) and aura (paranormal). Bubba73 (talk), 22:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not a POV fork any more than astrology is a POV fork of astronomy or graphology is a POV fork of questioned document examination. This article describes an alternative medicine technigue not based on quantifiable data and falisfiable hypotheses, where hair analysis used in forensics is an actual science. Jokestress 22:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, a separate concept from forensic hair analysis, article is well referenced. Merging is available as an editorial decision, no deletion would then be permissible. 80.176.82.42 23:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
• Re-Merge with hair analysis or Delete. The "alternative medical" uses are largely investigative environmental toxicology (excess exposures and if one includes deficiency) where the results are not stand alone definitive but may indicate follow up with examination, histories, other tests. I see no need for a separate article to argue "POV platforms" when the initial article is still so information deficient. If the "parent", hair analysis, gets to 60-80kb w/o bloating quotes, then a specialty article might be a discussion and it should split differently along more technical lines rather than a POV subject title. One needs to work the basics first. I was taking it slowly trying to improve the original article by making suggestions, trying to increase technical content, incrementally offering references like the CDC site, and then slightly balancing text when Fyslee streaks out on his own to re-establish a more highly negative POV article that feeds his other favorite POV references such as at Stephen Barrett, again and here. Even mainstream medical articles complain POV problems about altmed have inhibited legitimate research in the hair analysis field.--TheNautilus

• I wasn't aware of that. Do you have something I can read? It is quite telling that alternative medicine's misuse of hair analysis would cause problems for legitimate research, but it wouldn't surprise me. Just look at chiropractic's misuse of spinal manipulation. It meant that the medical world (with a few notable exceptions) was wary of using it, because of the aura of pseudoscience and quackery that has always enshrouded the chiropractic profession. Fortunately the medical researchers (those notable exceptions) persisted and got it to be accepted and used in some situations, but without the misuse and quackery. -- Fyslee 00:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It is appropriate to keep alternative medicine topics separate from conventional medical articles. The standards and context are different. In this case Hair analysis (alternative medicine) appears to be an NPOV article, not a POV fork. -Will Beback · † · 00:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Basically agreeing to most of the other arguments: Keeping them separate allows the Hair analysis article to expand while being focused on proven methods and applications, while the alt med issues can continue to be documented in a separate article. --Ronz 00:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete This article contains nothing related to alternative medicine as I understand that term. The "alternative" uses mentioned are in fact commonly considered in standard environmental and forensic exposure assessment where one needs to determine whether a person has had an excessive exposure to a metal such as lead or mercury, for example. The question of whether the method is valid for these purposes is important to any discussion of hair analysis and should be a part of the basic "Hair Analysis" article. Pzavon 03:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. The only thing that forensics, toxicology, and alternative medicine share in this case is the actual hair analysis. From that point on they divert just as radically as astrology and astronomy, which also share something -- the study of stars. They have separate articles, and so should these. The investigations that have been made of commercial hair analysis labs which primarily service alt medders have shown serious problems, which legitimate labs that only service scientists likely lack, so even the actual analysis is flawed, and the accompanying treatment advice and sale of products is likewise a dubious and unethical situation. -- Fyslee 20:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with the comments that suggest that the altmed use and the forensic use are in quite different contexts and should be kept separate. I think this will lead to less argument on either article and a greater possability that both will develop into good NPOV articles. --Bduke 09:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Sorry I do not have much to add, other than if the two were to be merged, there would either have to be consensus among the practisioners (of both 'branches') on basic methodology or one would only be a footnote. I think the mention alternative hair analysis gets is fair in the 'main' article and that any more details on it should be within its own article. But I am willing to be proven wrong if someone can explain to me how the methodologies, results, et al. of the two are bascially the same. Lundse 13:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Forensic hair analysis and alternative medical practicioners' hair analysis are two very different practices going by the same name. Hence they merit separate articles. To do otherwise would be as sensible as putting the mystics' concept of Energy in with the homonymic scientific concept. Bkalafut 20:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Havermayer 20:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Q0 01:30, 14 December 2006 (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.