| Revision as of 21:45, 21 April 2008 editCorticoSpinal (talk | contribs)1,880 edits →Sports Chiropractic: add QG and jefffire← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:48, 21 April 2008 edit undoRandom user 39849958 (talk | contribs)19,517 editsm →Sports ChiropracticNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| *'''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. - <font face="Verdana">] <sub>]</sub></font> 15:29, 21 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. - <font face="Verdana">] <sub>]</sub></font> 15:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Weak keep, if cleaned up''' - the term does appear to be fairly widely used, but the {{]}} uses need to be sorted out - there are a couple of ''<nowiki>{{{title}}}</nowiki>''s and some references that don't have any kind of description at all. -- JediLofty <sup>] ¦ ]</sup> 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | *'''Weak keep, if cleaned up''' - the term does appear to be fairly widely used, but the {{]}} uses need to be sorted out - there are a couple of ''<nowiki>{{{title}}}</nowiki>''s and some references that don't have any kind of description at all. -- JediLofty <sup>] ¦ ]</sup> 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
| ** |
** I have fixed the sources' title issues. Thanks. -- <b><font color="996600" face="times new roman,times,serif">]</font></b> <sup><font color="#774400" size="1" style="padding:1px;border:1px #996600 dotted;background-color:#FFFF99">]</font></sup> 18:33, 21 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 ] stuff about chiropractic use by sportsmen. ] (]) 16:46, 21 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 ] stuff about chiropractic use by sportsmen. ] (]) 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. — ] ] 17:05, 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. — ] ] 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 21:48, 21 April 2008
Sports Chiropractic
- Sports Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (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)
- 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)
- 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 16:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- I have fixed the sources' title issues. Thanks. -- Levine2112 18:33, 21 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)
- 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. Misplaced Pages should not be used for promotional pieces. QuackGuru (talk) 17:33, 21 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 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. CorticoSpinal (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)