Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific acupuncture

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 Delete No consensus (but cleanup). Cbrown1023 talk 19:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific acupuncture

Scientific acupuncture (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The incredible claim in the article that "This is an objective review from more than 10,000 scientific research studies published on acupuncture" is prima facie evidence that this article is Original Research, and should therefore be deleted, not merged. It is also a POV fork of Acupuncture, and is therefore not neutral, despite claiming to be so. greenrd 15:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as an obvious POV fork. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 15:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but Strong Cleanup I agree it appears to be a noticeable POV fork seeming to defend the scientific basis of acupuncture, but it has a degree of citation rarely found in a POV fork and addresses a common topic that is brought up in acupuncture discussions. I'd say rename to something like "Scientific Theories Regarding Acupuncture", link it from the main article, and clean this up toward NPOV...including some commentary regarding scientific theories that debunk acupuncture. Keep in mind AfD is not generally meant for articles for POV problems. -Markeer 15:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
• keep Very much to my surprise , it seems the article is very much worth keeping. Personally, I think that there is probably more actual scientific basis for at least some components of acupuncture than of almost anything else in alternative medicine. But in any case, the references and the detailed discussion of mechanism is very good to have, and it would overbalance the main article. A content related page, not a POV fork. Good work.DGG 08:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

comment Agree on science and acupuncture generally, but per below, this article is too badly flawed both on process and content to keep. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The comment below was written by an editor whose participation in this AFD discussion was solicited on his talk page:

I contacted Jim because he had interacted with Coladie earlier (as he mentions), he knows more about the subject than I, I value his opinion, and Coladie created this article as an orphan - ie users involved in acupuncture articles had no way of noticing (and fixing, deleting, etc.) the new article. Hopefully you recognize this as a friendly notice, and not canvassing. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a vote anyway. -- Fyslee/talk 20:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)\

Considering the substantial publicity this discussion has received at WikiProject Rational Skepticism [1], I certainly hope that this article isn't deleted as a result of vote counting. John254 00:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

• delete but merge sourced stuff with acupuncture, for the following reasons:

• Acupuncture includes plenty of scientific stuff as is, and can always use more, if it's adequately sourced and sticks close to those sources. There's the rub.
• There is a great deal here not worth keeping, at least in its current form, i.e. the large amount of material asserting hypotheses with little external sourcing (abundant wikilinking isn't sufficient; see WP:SYN).
• This is obviously an inappropriate fork; cf. the article's talk page, Special:Contributions/Coladie and Talk:Acupuncture (esp. this subsection), as well as the fact that it was not mentioned at the latter or wikilinked from the main article, which it obviously should have been. The intention and effect were evidently to create an article bypassing content and input from other editors at acupuncture. Coladie, the editor who created the page previously, tried to add a lot of this material at acupuncture.
• Whatever is worth keeping should be merged with acupuncture, perhaps on the talk page, and only with adequate consensus should articles then be spun off.

Final comment: speaking as both a trained scientist and acupuncturist, I've found it tremendously time-consuming and frustrating to separate out the baby from the bathwater in Coladie's contributions[2]. Coladie can obviously be a tremendous asset to WP, but forking in lieu of collaborating is just not cool. Perhaps Coladie might request a scientifically-minded mentor to help with consensus and original research-type issues. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 06:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

• Merge - Sorry to repeat Jim, but my opinion is quite similar. I suspected that this was a fork, and that it wasn't discussed at acupuncture, as Jim confirms (full disclosure, I asked Jim to comment at the AfD). DGG is right, there is a surprising amount of sourced material here. At the same time, much of it seems to be synt. The acupuncture article is pretty large and stable, and to me it seems that if a spin-off article such as this should exist, it should come out of a consensus of editors there, not out of frustration by one editor. If you look at Talk:Acupuncture, it doesn't seem that Coladie engaged the community much, and it does seem that the community was ready to consider the new material Coladie offered. Once this material is sifted through, a fork may be appropriate (a better title is probably possible), but a consensus can figure that out. As Jim said, hopefully Coladie can see this as constructive criticism, and take the time to help other editors sort through what of this can be merged, and how any future fork might be organized. Best, Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, for the following reasons:

(1) A review of existing research which has been published in peer reviewed journals is manifestly not original research. The nominator's claim that the article constitutes original research on the basis of the number of references consulted is therefore incorrect: an article, or material therein, constitutes original research only if it does one or more of the following: (a) it presents new experimental results or other data which have not previously been published in a reliable source, (b) it argues for a novel interpretation of existing published data -- that is, the interpretation has not itself been published in a reliable source, or (c) it promotes new ideas, terms, theories, etc which have not been published in reliable sources. An article does not acquire the character of original research merely because it reviews of conclusions of existing studies, duly published in peer reviewed journals, regardless of how large the number of studies reviewed is.

Does the term "Scientific acupuncture" itself constitute original research? Perhaps, unless a reliable source for this term is provided; however, deletion of an article is not a proper remedy for concerns that could be resolved by editing. In this case, the introduction could be rewritten without reference to the term "Scientific acupuncture", and the page moved to a new location; "Scientific Theories Regarding Acupuncture" has been suggested as a possible new location. Most of the article would remain intact.

(2) Much of the unreferenced information in this article is simply background information on human physiology; reliable sources for this information could easily be found. Any actual original research can be removed through normal editing. Deletion on WP:NOR grounds is only justified where all or most of an article constitutes original research, such that, if all of the original research were removed, the remaining material would not constitute a viable article. Since it is clear that much of the article does not constitute original research, and since many of the theories for the mechanisms by which acupuncture operates are clearly not original research, as reliable sources have been provided as references for the theories, cleanup, not deletion, is the proper remedy for WP:NOR concerns.

(3) WP:NPOV concerns are properly addressed through editing, not deletion, unless (a) the article is an attack page, (b) the article is an advertisement, or (c) the article inherently cannot be written from a neutral point of view due to the choice of topic. Neither (a) nor (b) apply to this article; treating the topic of the article as "Scientific Theories Regarding Acupuncture", it is clearly possible to rewrite the article from a neutral point of view, presenting evidence which is unfavorable to acupuncture as well as that which is favorable to it.

(4) The article is not a POV fork, since it is not a fork, but rather a subtopic of acupuncture. John254 04:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Responses:

(1)A review is at Wikipedia considered independent research when it represents a novel synthesis rather than a standard synthesis. For example, if I review the literature on new religious movements, that is a perfectly acceptable synthesis because the topic is recognized by third parties exterior to Wikipedia. However, if I review the literature on new religious movements based on science, such a topic would be original research because there is no third-party recognition that such a topic exists. The problem of original research is either an original idea/program reported or an original synthesis of material. This article represents the latter.

(2)The entire article represents original research per above. One can have exquisitely referenced facts and properly attributed opinions in an article and still have an article based mostly on original research. The key to understanding whether something is original or not are reliable secondary sources. This article uses mostly primary sources which makes it very problematic per Wikipedia policies and guidelines on verifiability and reliability as well.

(3)NPOV concerns are addressed through deletion when an article is created for the express purpose for promoting a particular point-of-view. This article is obviously promoting the point of view that acupuncture has scientific aspects. It is not the place of Wikipedia to judge whether or not this is true (personally, I think there are aspects of acupuncture therapy that are scientifically validated, but that's beside the point). The very title of the article "scientific acupuncture" elevates it to the level of a POV-fork by demanding an acceptance that such a subject exists.

(4)You may wish to read about content forking. Subtopics in new articles are, by definition, forks. Forking isn't a bad thing unless it is done specifically to promote a POV. In my estimation, that's what this article is doing.

-ScienceApologist 12:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• • Concerns over the name "scientific acupuncture" can be addressed by moving the article. The solution to an imbalanced article is to edit it for balance. The relevant question here seems to be: Does this article contain substantial usable content which could be employed as part of a fair and balanced article on this topic? Based on the substantial amount of information on theories regarding the mechanisms by which acupuncture operates contained in this article, much of which is attributed to articles in peer reviewed journals which have introduced these theories, the answer is clearly yes. If this article were deleted, any article which incorporated substantial portions of this material might be subject to speedy deletion under CSD G4; consequently, the article could not be recreated in a neutral form after deletion. If this article were a genuine POV fork, it would, of course, be unsalvageable, since it would duplicate an existing article (that is, it would constitute a genuine fork). Subtopics, however, really are not forks. A simple example should illustrate this phenomenon. Suppose that we had an article about biology, but no article on eukaryotic cells. If a contributor created an article about eukaryotic cells which contained much verifiable information concerning them, but was not written from a neutral point of view, editors here would hardly be clamoring for the deletion of the article as a "POV fork".
  • Much of this discussion concerns whether the review of published research contained in this article is itself "original research". ScienceApologist claims that "The key to understanding whether something is original or not are reliable secondary sources. This article uses mostly primary sources..." The claim that articles published in peer reviewed journals are "primary sources" is a significant mischaracterization of WP:NOR. WP:NOR specifically describes "written or recorded notes of laboratory and field experiments or observations" as primary sources. As a matter of common knowledge, studies published in peer reviewed journals don't merely publish raw experimental data; they also analyze and interpret the data, and draw conclusions. WP:NOR defines sources which "draw on primary sources in order to make generalizations or original interpretive, analytical, synthetic, or explanatory claims" as secondary sources. Therefore, the portions of articles in peer reviewed journals which analyze and interpret the experimental data are secondary sources. Now it is, of course, possible to use published research to conduct original research, if an article draws upon experimental conclusions to support a novel claim. However, merely reporting the results of published research is not original research. Thus, if study X found that acupuncture operates by mechanism A, it is not original research for a Wikipedia article to note that mechanism A is a possible explanation for the effects of acupuncture, citing study X as an authority. Much of the material in this article is referenced in this manner, citing published research which appears to specifically support the theories described. Any material which is inadequately referenced, and might constitute original research, can be removed without deletion of the entire article. John254 00:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The following comments were written after a link to this AFD discussion was posted in the "Urgent attention needed here" section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism [3].

• Mostly delete, check content for mergeability. Checking citation indices vs. all out Googling esayily shows, that "Scientific Acupuncture" is predominantly a marketing term. Yes, of course, there is scientific research in acupuncture, with mixed results, and this belongs into Acupuncture. The current article Scientific acupuncture is a prime example, that an article with more than 50 in line cites can nevertheless be POV, OR and borderline essay. The vast amount of research papers published allow by selection alone to "prove" a vast array of claims. That's the reason why this sort of references is rather low in the hierarchy of sources for articles in science (the rehashing of them in popular press are of course even worse). We are advised to find sources which are more secondary in nature: review articles, textbooks, statements of professional societies. --Pjacobi 08:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete the article meets the definition of a POV-fork. The editor(s) creating it obviously want to separate themselves from criticism of acupuncture and elevate it to a science despite it plainly having a status as an alternative medicine. If there was a single scientific research department at a mainstream medical institution devoted to "scienctific acupuncture", then I could see this article existing. As it is, what we have is a tactic of avoidance of critique that is done to avoid NPOV conditions. It's also pretty clear that the article represents an original synthesis of material which makes it plainly original research. Too many damning points in favor of deletion. We can stick to the acupuncture article as the main source for information on the subject. --ScienceApologist 12:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• delete. nothing to merge. Mukadderat 17:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing more than a POV fork. If there's any sourced and NPOV info not already in the main acupuncture article I'd have no objection to merging it over. --Minderbinder 19:21, 13 April 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.