800:. Honours given to organisation members (like one member being appointed to a Government committee) don't really confer notability on the other organisations of which that person happens to also be a member. A good number of the other organisations of which committee members are also concurrently members are not covered here, nor should they be on that basis. Remember, the subject organisation was not appointed, a member was. That would contribute to the notability of the individual, not the other organisations with which she is affiliated, in my opinion. Significant coverage requirements do exist to prevent the need for original research to
731:, which included them on their "Chiropractic Advisory Committee," which was used to determine how to include chiropractic services in the VA. If recognition by the U.S. government isn't notable enough for inclusion here, then I guess I don't understand you. You'll need to reword our rules for inclusion to make it clear that recognition (not mere "mention") by the U.S. government is not a "notable" thing. You seem to be stretching "
842:, IOW THEY are notable, not her. I had never heard of her before this happened, but the WCA was and is always creating controversy in the profession. They, with the ICA, are the profession's "problem" children. The only reason they are not better known is for the reason I have stated - they are an organization pushing an increasingly fringe (yet held by a significant minority) agenda within a fringe profession -
982:- Is the information accurate? Apparently, yes. Is the information presented verifiable? Yes. Is Knowledge better off with or without this piece? With it. I am firmly in the "Chiropractic is Snake Oil" camp, but that shouldn't matter a whit. This appears to be a legitimate, albeit highly opinionated and aggressive, professional organization.
857:
has been established. If we continue to provide more evidence, this will look like a total hit/smear job, simply because most of what they do is wacko fringe stuff. I think the few mentions are good enough. I'm not interested in restoring this article to the hit job it once was, or to the sales brochure it was for a while.. --
601:
Personally I have always despised this organization because of their promotion of the original chiropractic quackery, but that happens to be one of the things that make them notable to all, both within and without chiropractic, who deal with the profession. They are fringe, just as chiropractic is fringe. --
940:
Andrew, please explain what is lacking. How does a fringe organization establish notability? Multiple mentions in many different ways in the publications of its profession is usually considered sufficient. Representation on a government advisory committee for that profession is above and beyond that.
254:
There has been no serious discussion on the article's talk page, and an AfD is not the proper place to solve any deficiencies. A discussion should be started there and editors given a chance to fix the matter. If that fails, THEN start an AfD, but only AFTER due warning there. Please delete this page
856:
If we delete these articles, the subject of chiropractic will be whitewashed here. I do not accuse anyone here of such an agenda, but am just stating the consequences of hasty deletions. This is a FRINGE subject, and as such we need to exercise caution. Notability in the FRINGE world of chiropractic
1031:
No, that's true - the sources have mostly been addressed in the collective rather than individually. I read those sources (the linked ones) and thought they were good, solid sources for verifying certain claims. But I didn't think they offered much by way of in-depth (significant) coverage. But the
962:
I'm supporting this on the basis of NPOV. We need to have some degree of balanced coverage of the various factions of a movement, and this faction is substantial enough to include; an article on their organization is a good way of doing it. They seem the most significant organization of their sort.
652:
Dennis, my request still stands. You wrote above: "mentions and links to the general topic but not this organization." Which ones would those be? If I added them, they should name the organization or its officers. Did I make a mistake? Please provide the wordings, refs or diffs. You made the claim,
559:
Dennis, would you please point to any edits/sources which meet your description? I haven't done such a thing on purpose and want my edits to be up to par. Thanks...and Happy New Year! BTW, notability will be mostly in the world of chiropractic. The organization is quite notable there because of its
1012:
that I added before this was relisted for the first time. None of those are in any way fringe or pro-chiropractic sources. Is it really too much to ask that participants in AfD discussions address previous comments directly, rather than us all talking past each other? I would be perfectly happy to
804:
notability (by falsely extrapolating substantive "facts" from directory listings or passing mentions) but it is also used as a (subjective) standard to determine if reliable sources (news media and the like) consider the subject notable enough to require/justify coverage. In this case, the article
1054:
Phil, you are correct, and I fear I have contributed to the confusion. While fringe organizations are often ignored by sources outside the internal debates, these are sources that have noted the WCA's role and it's POV. Good finds. The sources are solid and clearly reliable. WCA is certainly more
879:
has expanded on the point I made further. I'm still not convinced but I think it's a better argument than any suggestion this subject meets coverage-based notability criteria. Sorry, but regardless of which is marginally more notable, you'll not convince me the subject gains notability from one
600:
Hu12, they are quite notable within the chiropractic world. Outside of that world they aren't notable. Of course when chiropractic organizations have been invited to send representatives to official government meetings, they have been invited. I could find such references, if that would help.
846:, they would be totally unknown to anyone who isn't familiar with the profession, and not mentioned in the mainstream press, but they are quite well-known to anyone who is familiar with chiropractic, and usually mentioned in the same breath as another group (the oldest chiro org), the
809:
the importance of the issues in which the subject is involved, but few provide the depth of coverage in reliable sources that we would expect for a notable organisation. However, I am conscious of the need to present both sides of particular issues in the interests of a
274:
You are mistaken. There is no requirement that anyone discuss on the talk page before bringing to AfD. Technically, there is no absolute requirement that you even look for sources. As long as the AfD is in good faith, it meets procedural requirements. We aren't a
814:
encyclopedia and that coverage which does exist suggests it is the counter-voice to a more broadly accepted view. I would still like to see more coverage but I'm not about to suggest that a valid argument for keeping the article absolutely does not exist.
1032:
point I made (one that has since been made) is that other criteria might be valid, given the information presented can be verified (even by a collection of passing mentions). Not sure what you mean by people talking past each other, though.
884:
of her membership, rather than her personal expertise. Had they done so, a related profile of the organisation would likely allow it to meet coverage-based notability criteria. But they haven't, so it doesn't... in my opinion.
854:. Progressive members of the profession wish that both groups would disappear, like the dinosaurs they are, yet they succeed because they are preaching the doctrine of pure and original chiropractic. Religious beliefs die hard.
166:
671:
Okay, I had some time and went through ALL the references, and the statement that "mentions and links to the general topic but not this organization" is not true. ALL references refer to the WCA and/or its officers. --
525:
Looking at the new sourcing, I see mentions and links to the general topic but not this organization. Seems like source padding, which is fine for facts I suppose, but doesn't support the notion of notability.
837:
Yes, her appointment does give her a certain sort of notability, but it only happened because she was representing the WCA. The VA needed representatives from chiropractic organizations, and she was chosen
578:
The organization may exist, however asserting that they are "quite notable" without proof is unlikely to convince anyone. Sources may have been added, however insufficient and trivial coverage fails
912:
the article does look like it's been improved during the AFD, and that's something we should always encourage, but I'm just not seeing that this passes our organisation notability guidelines.
255:
and start over at the talk page. This happens to be a very notable (within chiropractic) chiropractic organization which protects the original (pseudoscientific) chiropractic philosophies. --
308:
You are both correct. I wasn't aware that it had been tagged for so long and just saw this AfD pop up on my watchlist. Neither did I notice that notability was part of the tag. Procede. --
160:
744:
718:
681:
662:
643:
569:
420:
317:
303:
119:
1045:
898:
866:
396:
950:
1022:
610:
591:
550:
489:
437:
264:
243:
828:
513:
931:
991:
784:
619:
Generally speaking, the burden to demonstrate which sources demonstrate notability is upon you, and is a much shorter list. Perhaps you can point to those instead.
465:
371:
974:
228:
126:
380:
963:
I'm not sure about the neutrality of the article; the last sections in particular seem to deal in excessive detail with some minor non-current matters.
234:
The article was previously a vehicle for criticism, but has been somewhat whitewashed. I suspect a previous version that is improved might be better. --
92:
87:
404:
96:
215:
728:
79:
181:
148:
61:
1002:
796:- having read the discussion above, the article (of course) and many of the references, I'm not really convinced the subject meets
847:
713:
638:
545:
298:
1055:
notable than minor cartoon characters which have their whole articles here. BTW, the article by Homola was first published at
206:
142:
478:
359:
has given the editors a significant portion of time to improve the necessary sources that meet the criteria specified in
101:
66:
138:
997:
880:
member's appointment. Except for where the WCA claims as much, I can't see anywhere where USDVA says she was appointed
706:
631:
538:
291:
113:
188:
83:
17:
209:
shows only press releases and insufficient trivial coverage from non reliable secondary sources. Knowledge is
727:
I've developed a bit more, and also included sources showing they are notable enough to be recognized by the
109:
154:
75:
67:
428:
I've added to the article a few references to academic sources from outside the world of chiropractic.
690:
A source that "mentions" the organization is worthless for determining notability. Sources should be
105:
1080:
40:
205:. Has links but Relies on references to primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject.. A
335:
lies with the editors of the article and may freely edit the article during an AfD. The fact that
408:
384:
1018:
946:
862:
740:
701:
677:
658:
626:
606:
565:
533:
485:
433:
313:
286:
260:
239:
363:. In no such time has any notable third party sources been added and this AfD is fully valid.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1076:
1075:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1038:
891:
851:
821:
36:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
198:
8:
579:
349:
339:
694:
to establish notability. A mention is passing doesn't fit the standard for inclusion.
797:
1014:
1008:
987:
942:
858:
736:
695:
673:
654:
620:
602:
561:
560:
controversial nature. They are always in a fight with the rest of the profession. --
527:
481:
429:
309:
280:
256:
235:
1033:
886:
816:
766:
732:
691:
499:
447:
332:
57:
174:
52:. After three relists and plenty of input there is still no consensus either way.
510:
913:
811:
587:
369:
276:
224:
202:
996:
I note that nobody in this discussion has yet addressed the sources from the
970:
769:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
502:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
450:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
360:
983:
778:
459:
806:
53:
583:
364:
220:
1057:
965:
735:" far beyond what the wording implies, which is to prevent OR.--
1069:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1013:
see those sources debunked, but not to have them ignored.
173:
850:(ICA). The ICA also pushes the original quackery of
776:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
509:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
457:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
381:list of Organizations-related deletion discussions
480:so hopefully we can close this AfD as a save. --
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1083:). No further edits should be made to this page.
805:seems to be supported by plenty of sources that
187:
729:United States Department of Veterans Affairs
405:list of Arizona-related deletion discussions
403:Note: This debate has been included in the
379:Note: This debate has been included in the
1003:Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine
875:Sure, I get where you're coming from and
848:International Chiropractors Association
14:
357:tagged on that article since June 2011
653:so the burden of proof is on you. --
252:Hold on, this AfD violates procedure.
23:
998:University of North Carolina Press
24:
1095:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1061:, before being hosted at SRAM.
13:
1:
551:00:27, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
514:00:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
490:19:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
466:21:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
438:20:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
421:09:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
397:09:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
372:09:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
318:17:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
304:16:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
265:06:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
244:18:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
229:06:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
62:09:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
7:
1046:21:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
1023:20:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
992:17:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
975:05:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
951:03:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
932:03:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
899:06:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
867:03:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
829:01:48, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
785:00:28, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
745:23:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
719:21:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
682:21:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
663:07:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
644:18:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
611:07:20, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
592:18:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
570:04:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
76:World Chiropractic Alliance
68:World Chiropractic Alliance
10:
1100:
475:Substantial additions made
1072:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
840:as their representative
216:vehicle for advertising
852:vertebral subluxation
733:significant coverage
692:significant coverage
1009:Milbank Quarterly
787:
717:
709:
704:
642:
634:
629:
549:
541:
536:
516:
468:
423:
399:
302:
294:
289:
1091:
1074:
1042:
929:
926:
923:
920:
895:
825:
781:
775:
771:
711:
707:
702:
636:
632:
627:
543:
539:
534:
508:
504:
462:
456:
452:
417:
414:
411:
402:
393:
390:
387:
378:
367:
354:
348:
344:
338:
296:
292:
287:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
48:The result was
34:
1099:
1098:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1081:deletion review
1070:
1040:
927:
924:
921:
918:
893:
823:
779:
764:
497:
460:
445:
415:
412:
409:
391:
388:
385:
365:
352:
346:
342:
336:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1097:
1086:
1085:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1049:
1048:
1026:
1025:
994:
977:
956:
955:
954:
953:
935:
934:
914:Andrew Lenahan
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
870:
869:
855:
832:
831:
790:
789:
788:
773:
772:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
747:
722:
721:
685:
684:
666:
665:
647:
646:
616:
615:
614:
613:
595:
594:
573:
572:
554:
553:
519:
518:
517:
506:
505:
494:
493:
492:
471:
470:
469:
454:
453:
442:
441:
440:
425:
424:
400:
375:
374:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
269:
268:
247:
246:
197:Subject fails
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1096:
1084:
1082:
1078:
1073:
1067:
1060:
1059:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1047:
1044:
1043:
1037:
1036:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1020:
1016:
1011:
1010:
1005:
1004:
999:
995:
993:
989:
985:
981:
978:
976:
972:
968:
967:
961:
958:
957:
952:
948:
944:
939:
938:
937:
936:
933:
930:
915:
911:
908:
907:
900:
897:
896:
890:
889:
883:
878:
874:
873:
872:
871:
868:
864:
860:
853:
849:
845:
841:
836:
835:
834:
833:
830:
827:
826:
820:
819:
813:
808:
803:
799:
795:
792:
791:
786:
783:
782:
774:
770:
768:
763:
762:
746:
742:
738:
734:
730:
726:
725:
724:
723:
720:
716:
715:
710:
705:
699:
698:
693:
689:
688:
687:
686:
683:
679:
675:
670:
669:
668:
667:
664:
660:
656:
651:
650:
649:
648:
645:
641:
640:
635:
630:
624:
623:
618:
617:
612:
608:
604:
599:
598:
597:
596:
593:
589:
585:
581:
577:
576:
575:
574:
571:
567:
563:
558:
557:
556:
555:
552:
548:
547:
542:
537:
531:
530:
524:
521:
520:
515:
512:
507:
503:
501:
496:
495:
491:
487:
483:
479:
476:
473:
472:
467:
464:
463:
455:
451:
449:
444:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
426:
422:
418:
406:
401:
398:
394:
382:
377:
376:
373:
370:
368:
362:
358:
351:
341:
334:
330:
327:
326:
319:
315:
311:
307:
306:
305:
301:
300:
295:
290:
284:
283:
278:
273:
272:
271:
270:
267:
266:
262:
258:
253:
249:
248:
245:
241:
237:
233:
232:
231:
230:
226:
222:
218:
217:
212:
208:
207:google search
204:
200:
199:WP:NOTABILITY
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1071:
1068:
1056:
1039:
1034:
1015:Phil Bridger
1007:
1001:
979:
964:
959:
917:
909:
892:
887:
881:
876:
843:
839:
822:
817:
801:
793:
777:
765:
712:
697:Dennis Brown
696:
637:
622:Dennis Brown
621:
580:WP:CORPDEPTH
544:
529:Dennis Brown
528:
522:
498:
474:
458:
446:
430:Phil Bridger
416:PEANUTBUTTER
392:PEANUTBUTTER
356:
328:
297:
282:Dennis Brown
281:
251:
250:
214:
210:
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
798:WP:ORGDEPTH
794:Weak delete
277:bureaucracy
161:free images
511:Courcelles
355:have been
350:refimprove
340:notability
1077:talk page
943:Brangifer
859:Brangifer
737:Brangifer
674:Brangifer
655:Brangifer
603:Brangifer
562:Brangifer
482:Brangifer
333:WP:BURDEN
310:Brangifer
257:Brangifer
236:Brangifer
37:talk page
1079:or in a
1058:Medscape
1035:Stalwart
888:Stalwart
818:Stalwart
767:Relisted
714:Join WER
639:Join WER
546:Join WER
500:Relisted
448:Relisted
299:Join WER
120:View log
39:or in a
984:Carrite
882:because
812:neutral
802:extract
780:MBisanz
461:MBisanz
203:WP:CORP
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
1000:, the
910:Delete
807:verify
523:Delete
361:WP:NGO
331:- The
329:Delete
139:Google
97:delete
54:Michig
971:talk
407:. ★☆
383:. ★☆
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
1019:talk
1006:and
988:talk
980:Keep
960:Keep
947:talk
863:talk
844:ergo
741:talk
678:talk
659:talk
607:talk
588:talk
584:Hu12
566:talk
486:talk
434:talk
410:DUCK
386:DUCK
366:Mkdw
345:and
314:talk
261:talk
240:talk
225:talk
221:Hu12
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
1041:111
966:DGG
941:--
925:bli
894:111
877:DGG
824:111
582:.--
419:☆★
395:☆★
279:.
219:".
213:a "
211:NOT
189:TWL
118:– (
1021:)
990:)
973:)
949:)
928:nd
922:ar
919:St
916:-
865:)
743:)
703:2¢
700:-
680:)
661:)
628:2¢
625:-
609:)
590:)
568:)
535:2¢
532:-
488:)
436:)
413:IS
389:IS
353:}}
347:{{
343:}}
337:{{
316:)
288:2¢
285:-
263:)
242:)
227:)
201:,
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
1017:(
986:(
969:(
945:(
861:(
739:(
708:©
676:(
657:(
633:©
605:(
586:(
564:(
540:©
484:(
477:,
432:(
312:(
293:©
259:(
238:(
223:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.