Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chirotalk

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 of the debate was delete. Joelito (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chirotalk[edit]

Shameless self-promotion TheDoctorIsIn 21:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Article makes no claims to pass WP:WEB. In addition, the article seems to be heavily bias in favor of the website. I'd be willing to change to keep if evidence of passing WP:WEB and a complete rewrite happens. ---J.S (t|c) 21:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changing to STRONG Delete. Forum is hosted on proboards.com. ---J.S (t|c) 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This page has over 6000 unique visitors per month. What's the notability cut-off?

http://my7.statcounter.com/project/standard/stats.php?granularity=monthly&project_id=1146899 Ace of Sevens 21:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 6k per month... I got about that for my LARP forum that had a membership of about 50. 69.4.137.153 04:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Chirotalk's current membership is much higher, 832 individuals (see bottom of page). What is the relevance of the host?Abotnick 11:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Number of accounts is irrelevant. If all 800 individuals were regulars you would have nearly 100k hits per month. The "unique hits" tells me you get about 30-60 regular posters, if that. ---J.S (t|c) 19:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The sites owner (editor Abotnick) has made many attempts add a link to his forum site on the main Chiropractic article as well. His forum site makes it known that they are focused on boosting the sites PageRank by getting inbound links (from prominent sites such as Wikipedia). As for the references by other publications below, it should be known that user Abotnick works with Neck911.com (organization that created the hate-message billboard) in publishing and promoting press releases. With the NCAHF reference, it should be noted that the anti-chiropractic circle is a tight ring (in fact they participate in a Skeptic Web ring). They all link to each other, again to boost PageRank. As far as the James Randi reference goes, the "anonymous ex-chiropractor" that it refers to is in fact Allen Botnick once again self-promoting his website. Doing a cursory web search for his name on Google, I am actually able to find that he has inserted links to his website and cause all over the Internet in seemingly odd and inappropriate places. My feeling is that him creating a Wikipedia article about his forum Chirotalk is just another attempt at - as TheDoctorIsIn noted - shameless self-promotion. Levine2112 23:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding WP:Web one of the criteria is if the site is referenced by other publications. This site has been referenced in three. The first is in print and online while the other two are online:

http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/2005/aug/a.htm "Billboard's hate message is short‑lived" August 2005

"Even many critics of chiropractic were put off by the viciousness of the attack. During a discussion of the billboard on a predominantly anti‑chiropractic Internet group (Chirotalk: The Skeptical Chiropractic Discussion Forum), one member called the sign "Fear mongering, nothing more..." Another stated, "It's a cheap tactic to hit the public with a sledgehammer that big." One member made an interesting point by saying: "What if we had one for 'Aspirin can kill you!' or 'Reading this sign while driving can kill you!' That is simply a sensationalized ad to get attention.""

http://www.ncahf.org/digest04/04-11.html "Skeptical chiropractic forum launched. An online discussion forum for the critical investigation of chiropractic topics has been launched by Allen Botnick, DC, who voluntarily surrendered his chiropractic licenses after concluding that his education had not prepared him to practice safely. He started Chirotalk because other discussion groups have expelled people who posted critical comments. Chirotalk is open to anyone who wants to discuss the problems associated with chiropractic theory and practice."

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-01/012006bigfoot.html

"Thank you, Brian. We have here a note from last week’s anonymous ex-chiropractor who was involved, and I think it will be encouraging to others and give a new source of assistance. He writes:

Thanks for forwarding me the nice emails from your readers. While it will probably be a while before I "come out of the chiropractic closet" and use my real name, I do currently participate in an email discussion list called Chirotalk. The address is: http://chirotalk.proboards3.com/index.cgi

The members of this list are mostly former chiropractors along with a few Physical Therapists who are chiro skeptics. The purpose of the list is to support chiropractors trying to get out of the profession (suggestions for new careers, encouragement, etc.) and to keep information on the web to discourage new students from enrolling in chiropractic college.

I have gotten a lot of ideas from this list as to how to move forward with my life. The main reason I wrote you is that I respect your opinion a lot and, also, I wanted to bring attention to the fact that there are students like me who have been ripped off by the chiropractic schools.

I agree that I have a moral obligation to help potential students see the full picture. Chiro college recruiters are very good at painting chiropractors as mainstream healthcare professionals based in science. This is fraud – as far as I'm concerned – since all chiropractic is still based on subluxation theory, although some modern chiros call subluxations different names, like fixations, spinal lesions, etc.

Allen Botnick, D.C., is the chiropractor who started the discussion list. He is also graduated from my college and has written, under his real name, about his experiences as a chiropractor. He has really endured a lot of hatred from the chiropractic profession for his honesty. It’s at: www.chirobase.org/03Edu/botnick.html

Anyway, thanks for spreading the word. While I certainly wouldn't accept donations from anybody, I am inspired to consider telling my story in a more public way in the future. The kind messages from your readers have shown me that skeptics really have big hearts."

The site is volunteer and not for profit-unlike the chiropractors who are bashing it. It deserves mentioning. Abotnick 22:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Fan1967 23:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>The sites owner (editor Abotnick) has made many attempts add a link to his forum site on the main Chiropractic article as well.

Levine has a problem with many of the skeptical contributors to the Chiropractic article. I have actually written two of the paragraphs in the current chiropractic article and edited and rewrote the lead. Please see discussion for more information.

>His forum site makes it known that they are focused on boosting the sites PageRank by getting inbound links (from prominent sites such as Wikipedia).

Levine is referring to the writings of one individual member of the forum, not the forum itself. The forum itself is referenced by many individuals outside the forum itself as the statistics show. It is not simply self promotion.

>As for the references by other publications below, it should be known that user Abotnick works with Neck911.com (organization that created the hate-message billboard) in publishing and promoting press releases.

I had nothing to do with the reference posted above. That was independently written.

>With the NCAHF reference, it should be noted that the anti-chiropractic circle is a tight ring (in fact they participate in a Skeptic Web ring). They all link to each other, again to boost PageRank.

NCAHF is a legitimate skeptical newsletter. Levine is implying that any skeptical publication is a conspiracy.

>As far as the James Randi reference goes, the "anonymous ex-chiropractor" that it refers to is in fact Allen Botnick once again self-promoting his website. Doing a cursory web search for his name on Google, I am actually able to find that he has inserted links to his website and cause all over the Internet in seemingly odd and inappropriate places. My feeling is that him creating a Wikipedia article about his forum Chirotalk is just another attempt at - as.

I had no part in writing the Randi article. Please back up your statements with evidence Levine and stop the conjecture. Chirotalk is either the number one or number two top chiropractic discussion forum on the web and has been cited in several publications. It certainly has the most uncensored content as the other sites actively censor skeptical opinions (as I suspect some people are trying to do here by suggesting that Chirotalk's wiki entry be removed). People are going to be curious about its history and goals and it's worth a few bytes on Wikipedia.Abotnick 23:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only notable thing is this page is started by the owner of the website. Can you say self promotion???--Hughgr 00:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has less then 200 contributions. ---J.S (t|c) 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As this pertains to Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, Hughgr's "contribution history and pattern of comments" are consistent with someone acting in good faith... not a sockpuppet. -AED 06:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just making a note so the closing admin is aware. I never claimed he was a sock. One thing about AFD is that new and/or annon editors's opinions are weighted much less then users with significant history here. ---J.S (t|c) 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing about AFD is that how opinons are weighed depends on a full context of information which includes not merely the number of contributions but the "contribution history and pattern of comments". I just wanted the closing administrator to be aware of my opinion, too. -AED 20:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This user has less then 100 contributions. Also, the person who starts the nomination dosn't need to voice there opinion twice. ---J.S (t|c) 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. I didn't know. If this helps, user Abotnick and mysterious user 64.230.76.119 has tried to a link to the Chirotalk site in articles as seemingly unrelated as Homer Simpson and Crack and has repeatedly pushed to have the link read something such as: The #1 ranked chiropractic discussion forum on the internet. This seems very spammy to me. TheDoctorIsIn 07:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the pro-chiropractic forces are rallying to do their best to remove a channel for skeptical inquiry into their practices.Abotnick 01:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less about the chiropractic field. I've never edited a cyropratic article. I have no stake in the outcome of this artilce. I don't even know anyone who goes to the chiropractor, and I think this article is bias self-promotion of a non-notable forum hosted on a free-service. Enjoy your website. Enjoy chatting about whatever it is you chat about. But wikipedia has standards and your website fails them. ---J.S (t|c) 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is not a self promotion enter your own articles and websites to get yourself notoriety kind of place. Also, the argument that "the 'pro-chiropractic' forces are mobilizing" is patently moot. It 's like saying the "pro gravity" forces are arguing against commercial flight. The "pro-capitalism" forces are going to walmart to buy groceries today. Sad, and needs to be gone from this forum.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.175.2 (talk • contribs)

One of this user's first contributions. ---J.S (t|c) 03:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


This article is about his website and not himself. ---J.S (t|c) 03:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Over half of the article, six of eleven sentences, makes direct reference to Botnock. Regardless, the guidelines at Wikipedia:Autobiography pertain not only to writing about oneself: "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved. This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest." -AED 05:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just making sure your clear on the content of the article. ---J.S (t|c) 19:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just making sure you're clear on the guidelines and policies influencing my vote. -AED 20:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Autobiography. -- GWO
  • Delete, for most of the numerous reasons above. Jefffire 10:52, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Will someone please list the remaining problems with this article so they can be corrected? So far it appears that all issues have been addressed. Abotnick
  • Comment The issue that it is a non-notable website with only 6000 visitors a month and very limited attention from anywhere else (in other words, the standards of WP:WEB) have not been addressed. Fan1967 13:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG DELETE Using WP for free advertising and shameless self-promotion. Written by himself about himself in order to raise his forum's minimal importance. He seems to be the main contributor to his forum, asking and answering his own questions.
Abotnick has tried spamming his website in many instances around WP. He has also added fake "press releases" into the chiropractic article that he has written about himself. These have been removed. He is using WP as a soapbox to promote his POV and the fact that he is unhappy with his life. Who cares? Steth 11:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I know this isn't my first comment, but if you take out all the sentences with Allen Botnik's name in them, as it should be on Wikipedia, then there is nothing to the article. It is basically an autobiographical article about Allen Botnick's bias against the chiropratcic profession, and why he created his own little weblog. I'll delete the sentences with his name in them and see 1) how long it lasts, and 2)what the article looks like...thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.143.82 (talk • contribs)
  • "STRONG DELETE" I have practiced chiropractic for 30 years. Based on my clinical experience with thousands of patients and based on similar experiences of well over a hunded colleagues of whom I have personal knowledge, I find Mr. Botnik's bitter remarks to not be credible. For whatever personal reasons, he failed in an attempt at practice and is conducting a bitter anti-chiropractic campaign in retaliation. I have never met Mr. Botnik nor have I personally corresponded with him, but based on his comments that I have read, he appears to be a bitter and immature person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.51.102 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Self promotion. Not notable. --TrustTruth 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete: Does not appear to meet any of the Wiki's notability standards. Ombudsman 04:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

The content of this website should play no part in this decision (i.e. it might be totally unreliable for all I know, but if extensively used and influential then it would still merit an article), WP should not engage in censorship. The only significant issues are whether the website is sufficiently notable for inclusion and that the content of the article is a NPOV balanced, verifiable account. The latter is I think now true. The former however is not clearly established; I would suggest that Abotnick consider merging the content with articles on related or similar websites (e.g. Quackwatch) and use redirection to direct searches to the composite article. Gleng 10:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greng, I think the vandals and poorly qualified editors in the wikipedia process have greatly diminished the quality of the article. Further merging it with other nonrelated sites is no longer specific to the Chirotalk term so that doesn't work. This isn't chirobase-neck911-chirotalk. We are a separate discussion site with a history and individuality that deserves to be listed but was removed due to critical chiroprctors who don't want individuals to know that censorship is common at private nonprofit chiropractic institutions and that they have an accreditor who routinely doesn't enforce its own standards. Most likely we will need to just mount a PR campaign and get a reference in another media source to meet the WP guideline for notoreity. This is sort of ironic because of the biased chiropractors who are screaming that I am using wiki for self promotion. Anyway, wikipedia just isn't worth the bother if their major editors can't see the value of the entry. The information is available elsewhere on the net. Further, despite chiropractic's false assertions of growth they are running scams and it is simply a matter of time before the public hits critical mass and rejects them en mass. Utilization is already down 25% in just four years. So their reframing this as ad hominem attacks on me is really just a reflection of their inability to overcome the handicap. Chiros you can't build a house on a foundation of sand. Your scams won't win. Truth and knowledge have power. Abotnick 11:28, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that 'merging' in this way would be a bad solution. Disambiguation could redirect a search for chirotalk to a larger article on sceptical websites that includes, as a subsection on chirotalk, all the material that you presently have (and more). The case for inclusion on grounds of notability could then be decided by comparison with other websites rather than in isolation, as now.Gleng 11:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I do agree that the content of or the motivation for starting the web site should have nothing to do with whether it should be included as a wikipedia article. Does it have encyclopedic value.. possibly. The article can be cleaned up to be quite NPOV, though there is no guarantee it will stay that way. However, that means that every web site with similar qualities would deserve an article as well. Where to draw the line is apparently in notability. The line for this article would allow for other sites that are pro and anti everything, including medicine, politics, religion, vitamins, vaccination, phone systems, and most other web blog discussion groups. Is that what Wikipedia is? Is this what Wikipedia wants to be? I don't know. This is an important question that my level(two months of editing) is not qualified to answer.--Dematt 14:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gleng-The merge/subsections idea sounds like it might work. Would it still be under the heading of Chirotalk or another one? A list of Skeptical Sites could include: Chirobase.org, Neck911USA.org, "The Quack Files" and Chirotalk. How about "Skeptical Websites about Chiropractic"? Chirobase alone has a large amount of notoriety. Since this is a big revision can we put a pause on the deletion of this Chirotalk entry? Any suggestions for revision?Abotnick 15:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I protest any "pauseing" of the deleation. The consensus so far is to delete, not to merge. Wikipedia is not a webguide and your website is not notable. ---J.S (t|c) 15:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed. Regardless of the infighting between the pro- and anti-chiro forces, the only relevant question here is whether the site meets the standards at WP:WEB. Certainly Wikipedia has entries for many sites with controversial (some might even say bizarre or even crackpot) viewpoints. However, they are sites with higher traffic and much more attention than this one. Fan1967 17:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed. I think Abotnick is giving up trying to get a link to/article about his website and himself here and is now trying to start a Chiropractic Skepticism article. I am not sure if that will fly either. Might I suggest that if he wants his POV heard, then he should keep on editting the main Chiropractic article. But if this is all about trying to get a link to his website, then he should be submitting it to search engine; not Wikipedia. Levine2112 18:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with reasons given above. Simply does not meet WP:WEB, unless I, and others voting for deletion, are all missing something. Abotnick, it would help if you were able to provide such arguments; the validity of chiropractic is completely beside the point here. thx, Jim Butler 06:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment User Abotnick has today tried to remove the AfD template from the Chirotalk page. He has also attempted to change the external link going to his site to contain "spammy" link text - something which he was warned about previously. How much loinger until this article is deleted? Levine2112 21:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should be closed realy soon... it's been 7 days now. I guess noone wants to touch this mess of an AFD. The good news is that conseneus is clear. ---J.S (t|c) 15:11, 14 June 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Chirotalk&oldid=1070187725"