Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Sports Chiropractic - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CorticoSpinal (talk | contribs) at 21:45, 21 April 2008 (→Sports Chiropractic: add QG and jefffire). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 21:45, 21 April 2008 by CorticoSpinal (talk | contribs) (→Sports Chiropractic: add QG and jefffire)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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)
  • 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)
Categories: