Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philosophy of Chiropractic
WP:POVFORK. Sources which mention philosophy appear to be in universe and not independent. I'd also like to point out merely being notable (not that I am acknowledging it is notable, but to argue the point) doesn't mean we are ''required'' to have an article about something, or required not to delete an article. We do delete POV forks all the time, even when in principle an article could have been  written. From , about notability: "''This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.''". Deciding that we shouldn't have a particular fork of a main article is an editorial decision. It's an unlikely redirect target, the current chiropractic article provides more context and it's not overly long, and there is no content we want merged, so it should be deleted. As an extra benefit, it will also have the added side benefit of discouraging someone who is engaged in edit warring and sock puppetry from being rewarded for doing so
— User:IRWolfie, 23:56, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)