Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports 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 no consensus, default to keep. Disregarding any possible 'delete' !votes, third-party sources were provided which buoy claims of notability. The article does, however, need to be cleaned up and rewritten to stay in line with what the sources actually say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sports Chiropractic

Sports Chiropractic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This looks like an attempt by POV chiropractors to fork away from the main chiropractic article where finally some science based editors are now active. Mccready (talk) 15:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Addendum CommentUpon a bit of digging, it seems like Mccready has selectively canvassed editors to delete this article. Take a look: [1][2][3][4][5]. Is this not a violation of WP:CANVASS? Given his disruptive history on chiropractic, I think this is a clear cut case of of an attempt to subvert what is clearly a notable article I think that admins should carefully look at this case... CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • In fairness, out of those links, it points to three users who were notified, one of which has already made a !vote here with a valid argument. It probably should be consided prior to closing nonetheless, should either of the other users also come here.JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to note, 2 out of the three have made a !vote. DigitalC (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How did I miss that? Agree with the canvassing concern then. It's hard to reach a real consensus when everyone brings allies to vote their way, on either side of a debate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I did warn McCready about the canvasing. I would have found the AfD eventually anyway since I keep tabs of alt med articles, and the other contributor was already editing the article I believe, so I don't believe the vote has been particularily baised in any direction. Jefffire (talk) 15:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The point here is that Mccready deliberately cherry picked editors who a) shared his POV and more importantly b) have had disagreements with the lead author (myself) of the article. One only has to look at my Talk Page and archive to see what I mean. CorticoSpinal (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Since the canvassing does not appear to have made a difference this is moot. User:Mccready has been warned (by me) not to do it again. If he abides by that then there is no issue there. Jefffire (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Outdent Actually, I think there is cause for concern; I see your edits in the history, but neither of the other canvassed editors appear to have edited it, and one has !voted here already. We can't really know if these users would have found this article and/or AfD otherwise. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
If you are correct then that would mean that there was at most one vote which was gained (assuming the editor in question could never have found it by natural means). Such a small effect is not cause for concern since AfD's are decided by consensus, not by numberical voting. The only serious issue was the act of canvassing itself, which will hopefully not be repeated. Jefffire (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
That's true- I don't think the consensus has been altered. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The nom's bias notwithstanding, this article does not contribute to the value of chiropractic medicine article; rather, this is a mere application of the practice which does not merit this sort of expansion. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This is not merely an application of Chiropractic within the sports world, it is a specialty. DigitalC (talk) 23:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, if cleaned up - the term does appear to be fairly widely used, but the {{cite}} uses need to be sorted out - there are a couple of {{{title}}}s and some references that don't have any kind of description at all. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I have fixed the sources' title issues. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Citations 11 and 12 are still just bare links. Can they not be replaced with {{cite}} templates? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, but I disagree with the reasoning that this is a deliberate PoV fork. However, I am very dubious that this is a notable topic. Rather, it seams to be about a few very niche courses run by a few colleges coupled with some WP:SYNTH stuff about chiropractic use by sportsmen. Jefffire (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, and not having significant sources as to its existence as a specialty or the use of the term. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • A quick search would have been beneficial...[6], [7], [8] amongst the 4800+ hits at Google Scholar [9] CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not notable in any way. Kind of like the Veterinary chiropractic article. The article contains a handle of unreliable pro chiro partisan sources. Wikipedia should not be used for promotional pieces. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • You claim its not notable but 2 days ago you proposed [10] that we include it in the main Chiropractic article. You even wanted to bring the "unreliable" partisan sources. This is just another example of attempts at civil disruption that you have mastered over the past year. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Certainly just a fledgling article but with sources out there such as this one and this one, I don't think a claim of "non-notable" really applies. I think there is an interesting article to write about here. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Sourced, and the g-hits tend to indicate a wide use of this term. I sense a bit of WP:IDONTLIKEIT from a couple of those in favor of deletion. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and echo the remarks of JeremyMcCranken. The skeptics will do *anything* to disrupt and censor quality chiropractic medicine material, a quick look at the blocklog of Mccready illustrates that he has been disruptive to this topic in the past and seems to be resuming an unhealthy fixation which needs an adjustment. I would also note that QG would fit into this category as well with Jefffire's recent comments and contributions to be less than helpful with respect to the topic at hand. Addendum, in terms of notability, Pubmed returns 60 hits "sports chiropractic" specifically and over 277 000 hits on Google right off the bat. That argument not supported by the literature search, and is weak at best. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)CorticoSpinal (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per the article itself, which starts off by calling it an "emerging sub-specialty ". Yes, someone could naively use the term by accident, but I also see "are increasingly being approved " , "There appears to be an increase in the usage" , ". As part of a demonstration project" , "has steadily grown" , "Chiropractors' success in achieving acceptance on sport medicine teams is contingent " . all of this indicates that in the view of even thee promotors of the article, it is not yet notable. DGG (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I could have fluffed it DGG, but I was being honest and writing the words as cited. Had I known that being so NPOV would have been problematic I should have left no doubt. Suddenly sports chiropractors treating at the Olympics games isn't notable. Interesting. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
yes, I think your did indeed write an honest article. But your interest in it led you to assume the subject is more notable than the sources actually indicate. Understandable, I'm not blaming you--you're not spamming; but nonetheless the specialty is not yet notable.DGG (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep Obviously notable. . . see the sources already given at the article. . . Plus I know there are lots more out there.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know that it is an EMERGING specialty, and therefore the article could probably use a clean-up. However, it is a specialty (at least in North America), as seen by ccssc.ca and acbsp.com. In Canada for example, for a chiropractor to be elligible to be on the Olympic Core Health Care Team, they MUST be a Fellow of the College of Chiropractic Sports Sciences. DigitalC (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I made note of this and changed the status to reflect it's stature in NA and OZ
  • Delete, not notable per DDG, gazing into the future.... Shot info (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Notible topic needing its own article. Why it was nominated for deletion a day after it was started and not allowed to develop into a good article is beyond me.--Hughgr (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Scanning the internet, I see reference to major media discussing this subject (NPR, CNN, Newsweek, NYT, WSJ etc) with its practitioners. I also see a specific journal archive with an evidence based approach over a dozen plus years, I see books on the subject. DigitalC's point that the Canadian Olympic team requires the FCCSS seems doubly notable. Disclaimer: I have *never* been treated by a chiro (or PT). Looks notable with plenty of potential cites. This article seems to be developing much faster than most. Looks like a (don'tlikeit) sink or swim, or be Shot afd nomination.--I'clast (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This is a POV fork. This is not a recognized subspecialty like "Sports Medicine" is to real medicine (that is, medicine supported by a wealth of scientific analysis). There is no need for this article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as such and merge referenced material to chiropractic article - what concerns me is the heterogeneous nature of the article. We have (1) a Canadian degree/subpecialty, then (2) what it may be equivalent to in the US, then (3) general notes about the use of chiropractors, not sports chiropractors as per this spubspecialty, in sports...thus it could be construed as an OR synthesis. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentIt appears as though the anti-chiropractic brigade has been recruited in full force to voice their opinions here. Users Mccready, QuackGuru, Jefffire, are all mega skeptics who essentially want to shut this article down in spite that it's notable and more importantly, there's indexed, peer-reviewed research that proves its notability as a subspecialty. User Orangemarlin personally does not like me and has resorted to continuous personal attacks against me (anti-science) and he was recruited by Mccready (see diffs above) as was Jefffire. QuackGuru suddenly flip-flopped, first agreeing it was notable and wanted it even included in the main article (which I did not suggest) and then abruptly changed his mind, probably due to an offline email. Looking at his and Mccready block log you'll see a pattern of disruption at Chiropractic, and this is simply an extension of it. I propose a topic ban, at least, for those two after the dust has settled here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • And on that note, it seems that some long lost editors have been dusted off and pushed into the "Keep" fray. I recommend that there is some (a lot) of AGF, but since CS seems to be pushing for topic banning, I suggest that he joins in the ban, or else his cries could be construed as a little bit of crying wolf. Shot info (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I don't think this is a POV fork. It is natural that articles spin off into more narrow sub-articles as the body of text grows. If some editors view the article as POV they are free to add balancing references. MaxPont (talk) 18:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • At the moment there is an artificial synthesis between the subspecialty diploma and the use of chiropractors in sports. If there are references that link the two they need to be added, otherwise there both facts should be on main chiropractic page. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused of your comment re: artificial synthesis, Casliber. In order to treat at the Olympics you need to possess a sports chiropractic fellowship; both in the US and Canada. What kind of reference are you specifically looking for and perhaps I can track it down as I was going to flesh out the article over a few weeks. I didn't anticipate getting nominated and chopped in 1 day. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ref 10 makes a few mentions of chiropractors but says nothing of this qualification of being a prerequisite. Ref 9 is the newsletter of the publication which says this as well but does not say that these chiropractors are required to be sports chiropractors. What is needed is an independent ref that states that this subspecialisation diploma is a prerequisite for work in the field. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Casliber. I do have memos indicating that DCs must have their FCCSS (or equivalent) to work in a clinical capacity at the Olympics but I need to track down a source that confirms this. Cheers, CorticoSpinal (talk) 15:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that is the crux of it for mine, so let me know when these come in. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just to update, I found a passing mention of the requirement here but I know there is a much better source out there. It's a start, I believe the paper by Theberge(2008) at the Sports Chiro page has mention of this as well. It should be read is it proves beyond any doubt, the notability of the topic. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Chiropractors can achieve Diplomate status in Sports after 300-500 hours of study in a Chiropractic or Medical school. It is required in order to become a member of the Olympic Medical Board. Anthon01 (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Some "keep"ers are getting a bit worked up over this- please remember WP:NPA and WP:AGF. The arguments presented will decide this one. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep the subject is notable, and the sources in the article already are sufficient to establish notability. The article itself needs to be toned down in order to come in line with the sources cited, but that is an issue for the article itself, not afd. I don't think that the behavior of the main editors for the article in this entry is very pleasant, but I'm sure it comes from defending a profession like chiropractic. Again, like the article issues itself, their conduct on this page should not influence the destiny of this article. Protonk (talk) 10:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to chiropractic or weak keep. I agree with Protonk. This article definitely needs a great deal to get it NPOV, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it shouldn't. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • CommentI would like to apologize if the tone of some of my posting breeched a civil line; it's just extremely frustrating at times dealing with the tactics of certain editors. I was somewhat miffed at the time too because what I feel is a perfect example of WP:INSPECTOR and any untoward comments should be taken with a grain of salt and knowing a bit of the context behind them. Regardless, I am sorry if there's comments that editors would like striked out then I can do that as well. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Several of the cited sources do not correspond to the points they are cited for. Few if any support the claim that "sports chiropractic" is generally recognized terminology with a clearly understood meaning. This article has several aspects of original research, and is therefore inappropriate. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 21:00, 27 April 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.