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. Largely WP:POVFORK. j⚛e decker^talk 17:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy of Chiropractic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is a POV fork using only in universe sources. The primary author (an WP:SPA, WP:COI, recent ban, etc etc) is contesting deletion. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 April 2. Snotbot  t • c »  06:32, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect. Only a small part is truly about the philosophy of chiropractic, and that part belongs in the chiropractic article. This is just one of many large additions of suspect articles and portions of articles from this editor. We've already had many copyvio problems with all images uploaded by him, and large sections of articles have been copied without attribution from elsewhere. There isn't much collaborative editing, small improvements, and tweaking of content to improve it, but rather a bull in a china shop attitude, with large deletions and large additions. This has to stop. After a block for sockpuppetry, he returned with a vengeance with 3RR violations immediately. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that behavior concerns constitute a valid deletion rationale. Could you perhaps specify what is wrong with the article other than the concerns with the way it was written?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The argument presented by Brangifer is always discussing me personally and never about the content (sourcing or language). Regarding notability, it was already asked and discussed here [1]. Note that Gregbard opposed the title of the article not the content. Tippy and Bobrayner seem to have behavioural issues with bullying (constant reversions and deletions without any discussion of specific content (language or sources). If possible, I'd like to stick to the content, not the contributor (as Brangifer et.al) always seem to do. DVMt (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it. It's just a POV-fork of chiropractic created by copying text from Chiropractic that the creator liked, and failing to copy the bits that were less than positive about chiropractic. Most of the article isn't about philosophy at all. Attempts to make incremental changes were blocked by the article owner. bobrayner (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that if there are enough sources about the history of chiropractic thinking then it is entirely reasonable to have spin out an article about that separate from the main article on chiropractics. Such an article is not inherently a POV-fork or otherwise problematic. I don't know if there are enough sources about chiropractic theory, but I am unconvinced by the above arguments. If someone can either show me that there are or aren't sources about the topic then that would constitute a reasonable rationale for deletion or keeping in my opinion. The current arguments seem to be a mixture of not liking the content and not liking the guy who wrote it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Maunus here. Deleting the content based on not liking the content is censoring. (Which is what this looks like) You must prove your move. Make some valid arguments before deleting massive amounts of content. RachyB1 (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like another DVMt sockpuppet. bobrayner (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• We already have a separate article about History of chiropractic. This is an AfD for the Philosophy of Chiropractic article. The only connection is that big chunks of the history article have been copied into the philosophy article so the latter now duplicates bits of the former, as well as duplicating bits of Chiropractic &c. Since you mention chiropractic theory rather than philosophy, we also have this. The history is a bit difficult to understand due to the various moves and cut & pastes but it's currently a redirect which is reasonable enough. If somebody had good sources and wanted to build an article about chiropractic theory, then Chiropractic theory would be a better place to start than Philosophy of Chiropractic, which is the page we're discussing at this AfD. bobrayner (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a POV fork, but note that referring to chiropractic sources as "in universe" is itself representative of a fringe position as well as being biased, uncivil and simply wrong. Chiropractic sources are perfectly acceptable accounts when used to verify what chiropractors believe and do. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It's not philosophy. Philosophy involves the limitation of logic, and accounts for critical views. There are critical views to be had on this subject. I agree that this is a "pov fork." Greg Bard (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats an argument to rename not to delete.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well we tried that, and no one could agree, and certain people demand to have it as "Philosophy of Chiropractic" with a capital "C." So enough already.Greg Bard (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remind me which policy says that when we can't agree on a title we default to "delete"?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:55, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the disagreement on an appropriate title (which I was very open-minded to consider at all, BTW), I just don't think the topic itself is worthy or appropriate for Wikipedia, anymore than "Philosophy of astrology" quite frankly.Greg Bard (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red herring argument, Anything of substance regarding this article? DVMt (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gregbard, I've mentioned it why the capitalization was made 'Chiropractic' instead of 'chiropractic' being a proper name and a professional title. However, if Greg's wants a little 'c' to alleviate his concerns, I wouldn't object to that. Also, the POV fork argument could easily be applied to Chiropractic controversy and criticism. This is an attempt, IMHO, to game the system by seeking a radical solution (deleting the article and a redirect) which is also occurring at Doctor of Chiropractic as well. See the talk page for (lack) of any discussion by the editors who routinely blank content they don't like including the mass deletion of reliable sources. I'd definitely be up for an uninvolved editor (perhaps even yourself, Maunus) to provide guidance here. DVMt (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to understand what a proper noun is. Greg Bard (talk) 04:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing none of my points. DVMt (talk) 05:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should get back on topic anyway. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not an encyclopedic or notable subject. Chiropractic is a field of practice; it has methods; it has a history; but it does not have a "philosophy", and this article does not provide a "philosophy". (Note the absence of articles called Philosophy of medicine, Philosophy of dentistry, Philosophy of nursing, etc.) BTW the notion that "chiropractic" should be spelled with a capital "C" is simply foolish. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that, I would expect this to be a compelling argument for supporters of chiropractic as well. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP:POVFORK. Sources which mention philosophy appear to be in universe and not independent. I'd also like to point out merely being notable (not that I am acknowledging it is notable, but to argue the point) doesn't mean we are required to have an article about something, or required not to delete an article. We do delete POV forks all the time, even when in principle an article could have been written. From WP:N, about notability: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.". Deciding that we shouldn't have a particular fork of a main article is an editorial decision. It's an unlikely redirect target, the current chiropractic article provides more context and it's not overly long, and there is no content we want merged, so it should be deleted. As an extra benefit, it will also have the added side benefit of discouraging someone who is engaged in edit warring and sock puppetry from being rewarded for doing so. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.