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 17:24, 22 April 2008 (→Sports Chiropractic: comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:24, 22 April 2008 by CorticoSpinal (talk | contribs) (→Sports Chiropractic: comments)(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)

  • Addendum CommentUpon a bit of digging, it seems like Mccready has selectively canvassed editors to delete this article. Take a look:

. 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)

  • 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)
  • You claim its not notable but 2 days ago you proposed 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 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)
  • 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 14:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - 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)
Categories: