Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allopathic usage controversy

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. As there were also some merge votes, the content can be restored (for merging purposes only) once a clearer consensus for a merger is demonstrated.  Sandstein  19:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Allopathic usage controversy

Allopathic usage controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

POV fork of Allopathic medicine and Comparison of MD and DO in the United States. User:Hopping is pushing for the inclusion of this poorly defined and derogatory term in various articles, and is not entering into discussion. This page gives undue weight to this supposed controversy, which is non-notable and pushed by very few. The cherry picking of sources is a problem here. The material in this article is already presented in Allopathic medicine and Comparison of MD and DO in the United States. I feel this page is a bit WP:POINTy, and fails WP:NPOV (WP:WEIGHT,WP:FRINGE). I hope I've brought this to the right place. A prod is no good as Hopping will simply remove it. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Merge with Allopathic medicine which seems to be the same topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep or Merge with Allopathic medicine. This content was moved to a Comparison of MD and DO in the United States article from the Allopathic medicine article through a long, consensus building process. But now the comparison has changed its focus, and the content is sufficiently well-sourced to stand on its own.Bryan Hopping ^T 21:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Comparison of MD and DO in the United States. Merging with allopathic medicine makes no sense, since that is (now) essentially just a disambiguation page due to the many different uses of the word "allopathic". The article under discussion can probably not stand on its own because (I suspect) its topic is not notable, i.e. while the controversy clearly exists, and quite a few people take part of it, it's not sufficiently widespread to be written about. I doubt that Comparison of MD and DO in the United States will ever get so big that it needs to spawn subarticles. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this article and make very short mention in Allopathic medicine. No more than a few sentences. This controversy is not sufficiently notable in the real world to justify an article here. Most medical professionals are ignorant of it. A controversy here at Wikipedia about it doesn't justify an article either, as that would be OR and a SYNTH violation. We don't create the news here and we don't use Wikipedia as a source. -- Fyslee / talk 06:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per Fyslee RogueNinja_talk 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking through Wikipedia:N#General_notability_guideline and Wikipedia:DEL#REASON, this content seems to meet the criteria for permitting this content to stay. Wikipedia is not used as a source, as far as I can see. Perhaps the article should be moved to a less contentious title, like Allopathic usage debate? It may be a stub, but the material that is there is sources reliably as per WP:RS. Bryan Hopping ^T 14:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

comment The usage information should stay, but in a much reduced form in the Allopathic Medicine article - as it is already. I fully agree with users Fyslee and RogueNinja. Fyslee sums up the situation quite succinctly - there is no controversy, nor debate, just a small minority who (mis?)use this term. (As the nom, I'm for delete by the way.) SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

comment I think its worth considering the academic, technical nature of this term. A few examples of the usage of this term follow:

• New England Journal of Medicine Grassroots Activism and the Pursuit of an Expanded Physician Supply.
• American Medical Association. [http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2007/11/05/prl21105.htm "Record number vied for 2007-08 medical school slots Among allopathic applicants, MCAT scores were better ..."
• JAMA. 2002;288:2313-2319. "Academic Geriatric Programs in US Allopathic and Osteopathic Medical Schools"
• American Medical Association. Osteopathic and Allopathic Medical Students
• OKLAHOMA ALLOPATHIC MEDICAL AND SURGICAL LICENSURE AND SUPERVISION ACT "Allopathy is a method of treatment practiced by recipients of the degree of Doctor of Medicine, but specifically excluding homeopathy. The terms medicine, physician and drug(s) used herein are limited to allopathic practice."
• Association of American Medical Colleges Glossary "Accepted Applicant or Acceptee - a person who has applied to one of the US Allopathic Medical Schools AND who has been offered admission, i.e., been accepted, by one or more of those schools."

"Applicant - a person who has applied to one of the US Allopathic Medical Schools."

Bryan Hopping ^T 19:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - There is no controversy about this pejorative term, save for the controversy about Bryan Hopping's use of it across this encyclopedia. Antelan^talk 23:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with the delete reasoning above. This "controversy" does not exist, and the problematical meanings are covered in the Allopathic Medicine article. There is no notable debate either. GeoffreyBanks (talk) 14:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Comparison of MD and DO in the United States and Homeopathy and allopathy are potential merge targets, but a quick scan did not reveal anything particularly lacking from those articles that could be filled with information from this article. No need for a redirect. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 19:55, 29 May 2008 (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.