Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clarence Gonstead

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. Those arguing to keep presented sources, but failed to convince the delete camp that the sources met our requirements. That, plus weight of numbers, makes this a clear delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarence Gonstead

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Subject is claimed to have invented a certain fringe "medical" technique. Many references are from an organization spawned from his followers. He has a few mentions in some chiropractic journals. Delta13C (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a compelling nomination, does not mention easily found additional information, Gonstead Technique and The Gonstead System. No indication that this was taken to the talk page, the article is has 1120 reads in the past 30 days[1] and a consistent amount over the past 90 days. Somewhere between 50 and 100 incoming links in the article space. (I have no connection with this article or the subject). -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 16:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 23:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it's possible that the Gonstead Tecnique might be a notable procedure within the somewhat fringe world of Chiropractic practice, however even including that User:Musa Raza found I do not feel that we have a significant amount of sources to justify a WP:BLP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Salimfadhley (talk • contribs) 2015-11-28T07:02:54‎
Delete per Salimfadhley. Notably, even the sources on the technique appear to be deliberately obfuscatory as to what the technique IS, stating vague generalities mixed with marketing speak and jargon, which is a bad sign. In any case, even if the technique passes, only the weakest sources give any details about him, and they're the ones most obviously problematic. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 09:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking evidence of actual importance. There's no shortage of minor chiropractic sects, it's part of their business model, trying to set themselves apart from the others. Guy (Help!) 14:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Source provided show he clearly passes GNG. Everyone knows chiropractics is quackery, its does not mean we do not cover such people. In fact we should do so for that reason. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 14:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update I did a search on Google Scholar which shows a tremendous amount of sources here. The person's technique has been involved in a number of clinical trials. Here is a study [2]. Here is a source which covers him extensively [3], and another source suggest lack of insurance with his technique [4]. Also a third party book [5]. This is clearly not RUNOFTHEMILL. @Delta13C: in light of these sources I ask you to reconsider. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 15:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, a google search really doesn't show much. Take those results. Are they reliable sources? Dubious. Do they actually discuss Gonstead in any depth? No. These are almost entirely discussions of the technique he created, with little-to-no biographical detail, on a spotcheck. WP:ONEEVENT applies. The technique might be validly discussed in an article along the lines of List of chiropractic movements, but it doesn't appear to have sources sufficient to write a balanced, stand-alone article on itself, let alone on its creator.

If you think there's great sources, link to the sources, not a google search that shows every trivial mention of him, with an unstated assertion that a lot of trivial mentions add up to a useful source.. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they are, they are secondary reliable sources. I would recommend checking WP:RS, and letting me know what is unreliable about them. Are you aware they are from Google Scholar (linked it for you so you can get a better understanding)? That is not the same as a Google search. Some sources are from the chiropractic industry, yes, but they are not from Gonstead specifically nor his industry, therefore not primary and allowed. I would also recommend looking at this source from the American Chiropractic Association which states 58.5% of chiropractors use Gonstead, hardly trivial. To disallow them is the same as saying ESPN is not reliable for sports which sounds silly to me. Just to note, WP:AUTHOR states that an author is notable based on their work. Specifically:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From Google Scholar#Limitations and criticism: 'Lack of screening for quality — Google Scholar strives to include as many journals as possible, including predatory journals, which "have polluted the global scientific record with pseudo-science, a record that Google Scholar dutifully and perhaps blindly includes in its central index."' - just appearing in Google Scholar isn't a sign it's a reliable source. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look through the studies? The sources I provided were ones that were not runofthemill. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you? Let's review the ones you linked:

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1009&context=dennis_richards - Only trivial mentions, e.g. "These included chiropractic technique system developers such as Drs. Hugh B Logan, Clarence Gonstead, Clay Thompson, I. N. Toftness, George Goodheart, Warren Lee and Arlan Fuhr." He's only mentioned twice more, both in passing.
http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=57108 Obituary by his own clinic. Not an independent source.
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/health_med_fit/alternative-medicine-but-to-insurers-no-alternative/article_b21a17f9-29d1-5f4a-a902-0fa870d41715.html Only mention in the article: "the Gonstead Clinic, founded in 1939 by chiropractic pioneer Dr. Clarence Gonstead."
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5OfboQEACAAJ&dq="Clarence Gonstead"&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y Publisher: "CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform" - that's a self-publishing site. Not reliable.

Conclusion: None of these are independent, reliable non-trivial coverage. Most are only trivial mentions. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You understand that they are independent as long as he nor his company publishes them. So source with in the chiropractic industry unrelated [to him are independent and reliable for notability. Here: [6], [7], [8], this is fine actually though minor mention. I included two clinical studies for you. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 17:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that the major problem is WP:ONEEVENT - if he's only notable for the Gonstead technique, then there's not going to be enough for an article on him. Articles about the technique are not good evidence for him having his own article; at best, they might justify an article on the technique (but that's an argument for elsewhere). Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:19, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One event doesn't apply here, we use WP:AUTHOR. Creating a field is not an event but a body of work. We maybe be able to merge to the body of work in the future, but probably not best discussed at AfD. If you agree with me now I hope you can change your vote to a weak keep :) Valoem ^talk ^contrib 18:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. I think you're really inflating the notability of chiropractic methods to make them count under that criterion; in the end, he's only of note to chiropractors, which kind of causes WP:FRINGE issues. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:07, 10 December 2015 (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.