This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic articles
Please be more careful about such promotion. Please read WP:COI, especially the last part about unintended consequences. -- Fyslee / talk 15:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I got carried away and preformed an exhaustive search of every Google hit. Not most hits, every hit. Every Google News hit. Every Google Newspapers hit. Every Google Books hit. I did all those searches on "Chiropractic Economics", I did all those searches on "chiroeco". There are exactly zero sources that make more than a passing mention. There are false hits, there were hits to the magazine itself, there were hits to sources with the same owner (not independent), there were hits to non-reliable sources, there are several mentions of their industry-income-surveys, there are quite a few mentions citing their news stories, but exactly zero with more than trivial one (or rarely two) sentence trivial passing mentions. On one hand a long running magazine normally implies sources do exist to establish notability, normally the number of passing mentions citing some of their articles also normally implies sources exist to establish notability. But technically this magazine fails General Notability Guidelines. Zero independent reliable sources with non-trivial coverage of the topic. I'm tempted to AFD, but I suspect suspect it will get keep votes on the presumption that a long running magazine must be notable and sources must exist. Alsee (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)Reply
