Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Complementary and Alternative Medicine
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus. нмŵוτнτ 21:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Walled garden/POV fork for promoting so-called alternative medicine. The creator and sole maintainer of this portal has been banned by the arbitration committee for one year. The portal is hopelessly biased to the extent that if someone wants to create an unbiased portal on this topic, they are better off starting from scratch. --B (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The POV is ridiculous. Kakofonous (talk) 23:14, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
- Delete A poorly maintained, ridiculously biased portal with subject that's a bit specific (people interested in alternative medicine are better off helping out users at Portal:Medicine, which hasn't been updated in a while). --TBC!?! 11:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tree Biting Conspiracy (talk • contribs)
- Might be helpful if someone could point out the specific issues of POV that are involved, the few points that glare out at me seem to be easily removed but I am not familiar with the topic.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 15:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Agreed. I acknowledge lack of real familiarity with the subject as well, but the claims of POV are less than obvious to a lot of us outsiders. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't claim to know anything about CAM either beyond what I've picked up here in recent months, but the whole thing is very much pro-alternative medicine. The introduction is a very sanitized version of Complementary and alternative medicine. Every quote is pro-alternative medicine - not a single one is from someone who disagrees with it. The "Contemporary Use of CAM" section definitely is trying to push the view that it's mainstream and even lumps in prayer (which most people would not consider to be "alternative medicine") to boost the numbers of practitioners. I don't think, by any stretch of the imagination, that NPOV requires us to be hostile in our treatment of a subject. I even think that portals can be a little more "polite" in their treatment of a subject than articles themselves, or at least not as complete in covering criticism. But this one is so blatantly a POV fork and it was authored by someone who is under sanction for POV pushing. I just think starting from scratch would be better all around. --B (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- There is material here that should go, but I'm not convinced that Major Premise: UserX is banned for POV pushing in topic Y; Minor premise: User X authored Portal Y; equal Conclusion: Portal Y is blatant POV. It just does not follow. I think it's the nature of a portal that it comes off a bit positive towards it's subject matter. I'm not convinced that the level of POV here rises to such a level that the Portal needs to be deleted, rather than simply fixed. All portals are supposed to meet WP:V but this is one of the few that has references.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 03:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't claim to know anything about CAM either beyond what I've picked up here in recent months, but the whole thing is very much pro-alternative medicine. The introduction is a very sanitized version of Complementary and alternative medicine. Every quote is pro-alternative medicine - not a single one is from someone who disagrees with it. The "Contemporary Use of CAM" section definitely is trying to push the view that it's mainstream and even lumps in prayer (which most people would not consider to be "alternative medicine") to boost the numbers of practitioners. I don't think, by any stretch of the imagination, that NPOV requires us to be hostile in our treatment of a subject. I even think that portals can be a little more "polite" in their treatment of a subject than articles themselves, or at least not as complete in covering criticism. But this one is so blatantly a POV fork and it was authored by someone who is under sanction for POV pushing. I just think starting from scratch would be better all around. --B (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep - I happen to be very familiar with the subjects addressed here and I can find nothing that would support the negative claims being leveled against this endeavor. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep based on comment above. Portal's extant contents are one thing, but there does seem to be at least a basis for saying that the portal could be salvaged. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Keep This looks like an excellent portal. I don't think that "POV Fork" applies to portals the same way that it applies to articles. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:04, 4 March 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.