Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Veterinary orthomanual medicine

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. There seems to be consensus that this is not a thing. Happy to provide the content to people if it is after all a thing and better sources are found. -- Y not? 14:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Veterinary orthomanual medicine

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

Disguised SPAM for a veterinary clinic over several Wikipedia (including the Dutch) with an assistant. The Banner talk 21:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medical-related deletion discussions. Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (constabulary) @ 23:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Great, someone has invented horse chiropractic. This gets no genuine book hits; nor does "orthomanipulation". Looking for "orthomanual" alone picks up books on chiropractic. It's inconceivable that a significant veterinary technique would not appear in a book somewhere. Mangoe (talk) 12:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand why you say it doesn't appear in a book - I did supply a fair amount of references. Including this:

a b van de Veen, EA; de Vet HC, Pool JJ, Schuller W, de Zoete A, Bouter LM (February 2005). "Variance in manual treatment of nonspecific low back pain between orthomanual physicians, manual therapists, and chiropractors". Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 28 (2): 108–16. But maybe the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics is not good enough for you? But if you still don't believe me, why don't you look at this: http://www.vomtech.com/whatis.htm Or: http://corebalancetherapy.com/manual-therapy/ If this is a new method of treating certain types of injuries affecting dogs, I don't see why it can't be included. We do have a "Canine physical therapy" article in Wikipedia. I don't quite see what is the difference between these two, as this is a type of canine physical therapy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoranBar (talk • contribs) 13:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what your interest is in this article and that of Dorit Aharon? The Banner talk 18:43, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, "orthomanual" produces hits for chiropractic. Not veterinary. We need medical literature hits. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:02, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userify - If this is worth a standalone article then I would expect more coverage and independent coverage; Wikipedia should not be publishing or pushing practices that are not peer-reviewed and promotional. The sources in the article are largely statements unrelated to the development, practice and standing amongst academic and practicing peers. Userifying is better than deleting at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The argument that the coverage of alternative medicine is inherent "pushing it" is against policy. Rather, we cover it objectively. It needs expansion , and an attempt to see if it has been discussecd in the mainstream. DGG ( talk ) 20:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We made that attempt: it is not. If you think otherwise, find it. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy or delete. Notability is not established after suitable attempts. -- Scray (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2013 (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.