- 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 keep. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards
- Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
What reliable sources have written anything of substance about this organization? MrBill3 ( talk) 13:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, while the practices of chiropractic are questionable, this is an organization of note that is similar to the Federation of State Medical Boards for physicians or akin to AASHTO for transportation officials. It's purpose is for coordination of standards. Unfortunately the article isn't well written and cited so that may need some cleanup. https://doh.sd.gov/boards/chiropractic/education.aspx, https://www.chirobase.org/05RB/AHCPR/05.html. Randomeditor1000 ( talk) 20:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- I just hadn't found significant coverage of this organization in secondary sources. The first link you give doesn't actually provide any coverage, only states they use a form provided by this organization for continuing ed. The second link actually does provide some coverage and gives a ref (Peterson D, Wiese G. Chiropractic: An Illustrated History. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book, 1995:196-98, 203-5) that may be useful in rewriting the article as an encyclopedic entry. Still haven't seen solid establishment of notability. Thanks for the input. MrBill3 ( talk) 02:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- delete -- The content is cited to the org itself; does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. The content is strictly WP:PROMO, including:
- "The annual conference and district meetings provide an opportunity for a healthy exchange of ideas and viewpoints between member boards, as well as unified adoption of resolutions protecting the profession's examining regulatory standards and ultimately the consumer public!"
- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I wish to withdraw my nomination for deletion. While the article is pure puffery as written and not properly sourced, it seems this organization is a major established authority whose publications are considered appropriate for the basis of peer reviewed research. While difficult to find sources that discuss the organization directly, it is heavily referenced for data. MrBill3 ( talk) 04:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hey MrBill, this is an article on my list of ones to work on. I agree it's quite bad which is why I marked it as an article to work on with WP:CHIRO, but true to your words it's hard to figure out a new approach. I've actually reached out to the org already a few weeks ago asking if they could share their history, etc (from a published text or elsewhere) so I could include some good references for the page. Just responding here to let you know i'll keep the rest of the comments on this AfD in mind too when I attempt to improve it! SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 13:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. TonyBallioni ( talk) 17:15, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards
- Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
What reliable sources have written anything of substance about this organization? MrBill3 ( talk) 13:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep, while the practices of chiropractic are questionable, this is an organization of note that is similar to the Federation of State Medical Boards for physicians or akin to AASHTO for transportation officials. It's purpose is for coordination of standards. Unfortunately the article isn't well written and cited so that may need some cleanup. https://doh.sd.gov/boards/chiropractic/education.aspx, https://www.chirobase.org/05RB/AHCPR/05.html. Randomeditor1000 ( talk) 20:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- I just hadn't found significant coverage of this organization in secondary sources. The first link you give doesn't actually provide any coverage, only states they use a form provided by this organization for continuing ed. The second link actually does provide some coverage and gives a ref (Peterson D, Wiese G. Chiropractic: An Illustrated History. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book, 1995:196-98, 203-5) that may be useful in rewriting the article as an encyclopedic entry. Still haven't seen solid establishment of notability. Thanks for the input. MrBill3 ( talk) 02:55, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- delete -- The content is cited to the org itself; does not meet WP:ORGDEPTH. The content is strictly WP:PROMO, including:
- "The annual conference and district meetings provide an opportunity for a healthy exchange of ideas and viewpoints between member boards, as well as unified adoption of resolutions protecting the profession's examining regulatory standards and ultimately the consumer public!"
- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Keep I wish to withdraw my nomination for deletion. While the article is pure puffery as written and not properly sourced, it seems this organization is a major established authority whose publications are considered appropriate for the basis of peer reviewed research. While difficult to find sources that discuss the organization directly, it is heavily referenced for data. MrBill3 ( talk) 04:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- Hey MrBill, this is an article on my list of ones to work on. I agree it's quite bad which is why I marked it as an article to work on with WP:CHIRO, but true to your words it's hard to figure out a new approach. I've actually reached out to the org already a few weeks ago asking if they could share their history, etc (from a published text or elsewhere) so I could include some good references for the page. Just responding here to let you know i'll keep the rest of the comments on this AfD in mind too when I attempt to improve it! SEMMENDINGER ( talk) 13:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
- 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.