Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturopathic doctor

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. John254 15:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Naturopathic doctor

Naturopathic doctor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

POV fork of Naturopathy, and a dangerous one: I did a websearch for "ND legal requirements naturopathy" and found this website which says "In a state without naturopathic licensure, anyone can call him or herself a ND regardless of the level of training, experience or competence." According to the NCCAM, [1], only 11 states in the United states actually do licence them. In other words, we are making claims that everyone who designates themselves an ND is a fully-certified, highly-trained professional, something that is actually only true of a minority. This article should be deleted as a POV-fork, and/or redirected to the main article. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Does the degree exist? If so, could the article explain the problem of only certain states recognizing the degree? A2Kafir (and...?) 02:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If the degree exists, it may be pertinent information but some caveats must be given about the 11 US states that license naturaopathic doctors. If not delete. Artene50 (talk) 02:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - The ND degree exists and allows the practitioner to be a primary care provider in some (apparently 11) US states. However, in other states, either there is no regulation (anyone can call themselves an ND), or it is completely illegal. There is such thing as Naturopathic medical school, which grants the ND degree. In the article, these points should all be clearly stated in the lead. I don't think this is a POV fork, since the degree exists, and it is different from naturopathy in other countries. However, the article should be moved to the more appropriate Doctor of Naturopathy. (A history merge should be performed after this Afd.) Also, depending on the aggressiveness and boldness of this article's authors, there is a high potential for controversy, similar to what goes on between the traditional medicine and chiropractic camps. Some previous editors tried to insert naturopathic medical education information in with traditional medical education, which has repeatedly been rejected by the traditional medical community. I think having separate naturopathic medicine articles is appropriate and the best solution. --Scott Alter 06:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • After reading Scott's comments, I change my vote to Keep with the caveats and changes discussed. There are genuine online references in the article. Its not a WP:SPAM Artene50 (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Just to get the number right, there are 15 states that license naturopathic doctors; the 14 listed in the NCAM link in Shoemaker's comment above, and Minnesota, which passed a licensing law in the past few weeks, for references see the naturopathy talk page under "Minnesota Licensure." Lamaybe (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - It might be repetitive to motion to keep an article that I wrote, but I'd like to respond to the criticism that this is a dangerous POV fork. I think the first points that Shoemaker raises above are great, that anyone can call themselves an ND in unlicensed states, and that only certain states and provinces in North America license NDs. The original article also describes those points. But then Shoemaker states that the article makes claims "that everyone who designates themselves an ND is a fully-certified, highly-trained professional..." I don't see that claim, or even that implication, anywhere in the article. If this is a blind spot for me, please point it out! Lastly, this doesn't seem like a fork to me; it's describing a professional degree granted by accredited institutions, and recipients of that degree are licensed to be primary care providers in 15 states and 4 provinces! It struck me as being as worthy of an article as Doctor of Medicine, Doctor of Philosophy, or Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, which is, of course, why I wrote it. :) Lamaybe (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Although I think that Shoemaker's Holiday's initial critique had merit, it seems clear that his or hers concerns have been addressed by the series of rewrites. I think also that people looking for general information on naturopathy will generally end up at Naturopathic medicine; readers who reach this page are likely looking for specific information about licensure and accreditation, and hence this article is of use and should not be merged. Eggsyntax (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - legitimate, valid and useful. Kingturtle (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with naturopathy. Duplication of content for no good reason. JFW | T@lk 14:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't know how much or little I should chime in, according to wiki etiquette, but I think I found a description of the appropriateness of this article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#Related_articles I also read that in most circumstances, calling a new article a POV fork is itself considered POV: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Content_forking#What_forking_is I'm not intending to slight anyone with this comment, I'm still relatively new at contributing to wikipedia, and I just wanted to share what I read. Lamaybe (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - I see reasons to take it further and separate out naturopathy as a philosophy, naturopathic medicine as a profession and doctor of naturopathic medicine as an academic doctorate degree. It's also my opinion that those who disagree probably have a non-npov and/or a coi, but would probably never admit to it. --ThujaSol (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Naturopathic medicine. Whatever is not legal advice or promotion can easily be discussed there. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Being an officially recognized professional degree in a number of states and provinces makes it clearly notable. Klausness (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2008 (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.