Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackery

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 was Keep. Ten "keeps" in one hour is clearly a snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quackery

Quackery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Inherently POV —Whig (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep If there are POV issues with the article, then by all means correct them, but it seems that the subject matter is notable enough and sources are plenty. Needs work, not deletion. Pharmboy (talk) 19:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep or change to more modern name, such as Medical fraud (currently redirects to this article). But do not delete! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep: If every article that had some POV issues were to be summarily deleted, there would not be much of a Wikipedia left. Correct the issue, do not delete. --SimpleParadox 19:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Srong Keep - Article has one small POV issue in that the section "Notable historical persons accused of quackery" has grown to large and bloated. Otherwise article is well written and sourced appropriately. I do not believe this article should be deleted because of an easily fixable issue. Elhector (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Easily satisfies WP:N. "Inherently POV" is not a deletion criteria, per Wikipedia:Content forking#Articles whose subject is a POV. Given the nominator's history, this is probably a WP:POINTed nomination. Fireplace (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. That such an obviously notable topic could be nominated for deletion stretches the limits of WP:AGF. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Srong Keep - This is ridiculous. Notable, interesting and useful. And I believe this violates Whig's probation terms. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as an obviously notable topic (borderline speedy or WP:SNOW). Nominating this article, with the rationale "Inherently POV", speaks to either a profound misunderstanding of WP:NPOV or bad faith. A combination of the two cannot be entirely excluded. MastCell Talk 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Per everyone else here. Quacks would love for people to think that quackery is a point of view issue, but it just isn't. Rray (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, per WP:SNOW, and no reasons presented considered to be reasons for deletion. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2007 (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.