Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chiropractic Biophysics

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic Biophysics

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

This particular WP:POV fork of chiropractic seems to be a particular technique championed by two chiropractors, the Harrison father and son pair. Per WP:FRINGE we need independent sources that acknowledge this particular technique is notable. Aside from showing up in venues where the technique has been promoted by the Harrisons, there is no outside indication that this technique is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and without those independent sources it is impossible for Wikipedia to have a proper article on the subject. jps (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

delete per reason stated by jps, furthermore the article has 0 secondary sources per MEDRS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:05, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete agree not enough independent secondary sources to justify its own article, might be worth a sentence of two in the chiropractic article Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost all sources are non-independent sources that cannot be used to determine notability. The page is littered with MEDRS violations, including sources written by the trade. I found one dated review which was added to the main chiropractic page. QuackGuru (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a distinct notable topic. Alexbrn (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' this nonsense. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that, on the basis of Google searches and analyzing the content of this article, there don't seem to be enough independent or secondary sources to satisfy the WP:GNG for this topic.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Geogene (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no evidence of notability, Fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 22:24, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For reasons listed above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanlu121 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 17 March 2016‎

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2016 (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.