Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinal Decay

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. I'm of the opinion of that the need for reliable sources for medical subjects is especially pressing and takes priority. El_C 19:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spinal Decay

Spinal Decay (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Neologism created by the article's principle author. No demonstration of notability, no references. Originally CSD'd as spam, but COI is not automatically spam, and as this isn't advertising a product, I decided to bring it here instead, as there is no CSD for neologisms AKRadecki^Speaketh 20:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 20:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Sort of notable, if pages on Chiropractors' websites are believable. —Travis^talk 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Well, I was sort of on the fence on this one. Yes, there are obviously plenty of Google hits. I was, however, afraid that there might also quite a few positives that talk about spinal decay in general and not about the term as it's specifically defined in the article. I did find some chiropractic literature that did at least mention the term and spinal decay patient's anamnesis and symptoms (though often in passing). Unfortunately, I do not have access to any medical databases. Upon closer examination, it becomes obvious that there are some false positives but I also think that there are many sources that deal specifically with this phenomenon/syndrome. At this point, it's probably pretty obvious that I'm not a doctor (and that I don't play one on TV either) and, while this may not become a FA anytime soon, I still think that the term is sufficiently notable and that there are enough reliable sources out there to keep the article. --S ^up? 23:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Pubmed has no articles with the phrase in the title or abstract--and neither does Scopus. the conclusion is that it is not notable as science. It is used by chiropractors, but again not in professional journals--the article explains fairly well that it is a very generic popular term for spinal problems at various stages. I couldn't find a conventionally RS online. DGG (talk) 01:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Spinal Decay, you see, is apparently a term used exclusively in chiropractic, so it's not exactly medicine. Therefore, I'm not surprised that you couldn't find it in medical references. —Travis^talk 01:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Chiropractors are not doctors. This is psuedo-science not medicine. This is not a term recognised by proper medical journals or qualified doctors. It's misleading to present it as medicine because it is actually voodoo. Nick mallory 01:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable neologism, coined by an apparently non-notable "doctor". Pubmed has exactly zero hits for "spinal decay", while it has >3000 hits for "chiropractic". So while it is easy to establish the notability of the latter, irrespective of whether one believes it is pseudoscientific or not, the former simply does not have secondary, reliable sources that are needed to write an article. Note that especially for health related matters, it is worse to have half-baked articles based on non-reliable sources (such as the ones given by google), than no article at all. Abecedare 04:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: JonFursh (talk · contribs) has created other articles (The Furshpan Maneuver, Bernard Furshpan) that were deleted as blatant spam, advert and comment. Abecedare 04:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete No sources other than the author's and a few other chiropractors' websites. Also per Abecedare's "health related matters" argument. —Travis^talk 14:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete Neologism. If somebody wanted to find more information about it, they could read about spondylosis or degenerative disc disease. Like everyone else said, the "doctor" is a chiropractor who has repeatedly added spam to WP. Original research, and was added by the "doctor" himself. - Cyborg Ninja 14:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I've read a lot of medical reports and "spinal decay" doesn't seem to have caught on. Chiropractors tend to have a little more leeway in making up new terms, but even the chiropractic association doesn't seem to endorse this one. "Degenerative disc disease" is the equally scary sounding term that physicians use for the process going on with all of us. Mandsford 23:28, 29 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.