Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 May 25

NUCCA – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Seems an unambiguous delete here. Pinging all involved editors: QuackGuru Mikael Häggström Valoem BullRangifer Moxy HealthyGirl PeterTheFourth 009o9 Cunard LK Ozzie10aaaa Carl Fredik 💌 📧 11:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

comment Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/NUCCA ...no consensus?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"No consensus" was the proper close. When one discounted the non-policy based reasons (quackery, no evidence, fringe, etc.), there was only one more for deletion than for keep. Otherwise a tie, so there was definitely no consensus for deletion. Do the math. Sandstein made the right decision. The article was also improved during the AfD, which is sort of the whole idea. BTW, this type of deletion review, so quickly after an AfD, shouldn't be allowed. We need a policy to prevent such reviews and new AfDs so soon. There also needs to be new arguments which were not used in the previous AfD. There are no reasons given here. Just a complaint. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Discounting efficacy arguments on the basis that they are non-policy arguments is correct. --joe decker ^talk 15:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As long as you're pinging all editors of the AFD, the three you missed are User:Lawrencekhoo, User:DGG, and Sandstein (whom I specifically notified of this discussion, since you followed neither steps 1 nor 4 above). The also-omitted step 6 (tagging the AFD page) is easier and usually just as effective. </WP:BURO> —Cryptic 17:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Editors have refused to show how the article is notable. For example, User:BullRangifer claimed "fringe sources can be used to document such notability, per WP:PARITY."[1] According to WP:FRIND, "Points that are not discussed in independent sources should not be given any space in articles." The article is clearly not notable. QuackGuru (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was the proper close with regards to policy based rationale. Many of arguments for deletion were based on WP:IDONTLIKEITs. WP:GNG and sources provided showed that there were secondary sources. This is the only possible close anything else would have been a supervote. Also just to note the nominator CFCF has been disruptive when it comes to fringe, he has attempted merges against consensus multiple times even after being warned. While he may be a valid editor when it comes to medical topics, he has a clear bias and disdain for how we cover fringe here. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse considering the topic bias openly displayed by the nominator and several delete voters, I would support that the review be changed to Keep. 009o9^Disclosure(Talk) 17:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The discussion clearly shows there was no consensus. ( I commented there , not !voted, because I was myself not clear how to handle this, but if it is listed again I shall probably ~vote to keep, in order to combat bias.). DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - After discounting invalid delete arguments, no consensus to delete is what remains.- Mr X 19:53, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse on the basis of the subject of the article I'd quite happily recommend complete obliteration, unfortunately I've read the discussion a few times and I can't discern any real consensus in it. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't exactly have a history of agreeing with CFCF; in fact I was the complainant at an Arbcom case against him and QuackGuru, which led to sanctions against them. But in this case I believe they may have a point. Chiropractic is a lucrative subset of alternative medicine, i.e. a nest of snake oil salesmen and credulous true believers. It ranks ~~roughly alongside~~ slightly above homeopathy in offering services of very dubious benefit in return for very substantial charge. There's very little decent science to back up its claims. I feel that articles on alternative medicines should be held to very rigorous sourcing standards and I have a real concern that this article is insufficiently skeptical.
If DRV endorses the no consensus finding, then okay, that's a defensible decision, but I feel it would then be open to editors to find a suitable redirect target, redirect it, and protect the redirect to prevent it from being interfered with for promotional reasons later.—S Marshall T/C 20:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, we need to have a variant of Godwin's Law to prevent people from comparing all alternative medicine treatments or modalities to Homeopathy, which is clearly the great-grand-daddy of placebo nonsense. At least Chiropractic actually *does* something, even though it may be of dubious value and there are plenty of ludicrous claims by True Believers. As a licensed medical provider, I have had a fair number of patients articulate benefits from chiropractic treatment for real back problems, often in cases where simple physical therapy or massage have failed to remedy the issues. I'd still go for OMM first if I needed treatment myself, but Chiropractic isn't near as disreputable amongst those of us who actually treat patients with evidence-based medicine as Homeopathy is. All this to say that Chiropractic is far from fringiest of the fringe, and plenty of insurance plans, never fans of experimentation, are covering chiropractic care, where I've never heard of a single plan ever covering homeopathy. Jclemens (talk) 07:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - In deference to this view I've stricken "roughly alongside" and replaced it with "slightly above". As an Englishman, I'm afraid I know nothing of these medical insurance plans of which you speak.—S Marshall T/C 07:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I don't agree with the reading of no consensus. I believe it's a consensus for delete, whether we're looking at arguments or purely looking at votes- for arguments, there was no demonstration that the article was the subject of reliable, independent coverage to establish notability- there were many unreliable or non-independent sources found, but those do not establish notability. For votes, well, it was 7-3? Which seems like a consensus to delete, either way. PeterTheFourth (talk) 23:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I would have reached the same conclusion myself, based on the discussion. LK (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Easily read as a "no consensus", and definitely not a "consensus to delete" nor a "consensus to keep". The discussion was lengthy, so it is probably best to give it a rest for a while before re-examining. See advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse !votes that claim there are no reliable sources when about a dozen have been presented need to discuss those presented sources if they are to carry any significant weight. They did not. Hobit (talk) 12:10, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, once we remove the opinions that say "no proven efficacy", then this isn't even close on the numbers. It's pure quackery of course, and that's what the article should say, but merely being untrue doesn't mean that it's not notable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.