Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dental amalgam 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 keep  per the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike ( talk ) 02:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Dental amalgam controversy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a real controversy. There are a few crazy weirdos and groups who have sponsored Zogby push polls and others who try to "drum up" the idea that a "controversy" exists, but in fact, none exists. There are no independent reliable sources which indicate that a dental amalgam controversy exists: only sources to obvious POV-sources such as "Mercury Watch" and autism pseudoscience groups. The material that is notable can be sourced in dental filling, but this article is essentially a WP:POVFORK. Please delete. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.   --  StarM  03:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   --  StarM  03:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I went into this AfD expecting to apply WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE, but I was surprised.  Sources like this one  pretty clearly indicate that the controversy is more than a crazy fringe theory.  The article has perhaps some issues with neutrality of coverage, but is overall well sourced and documenting a notable phenomenon. gnfnrf (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. As the article noted by Gnfnrf (dated 2007) states:"The FDA provided a “White Paper” for the Panel’s consideration that selected 34 studies out of many hundreds that fulfilled their criteria for inclusion. Following a careful review and discussion of the presentations and science, the Joint Panel voted 13-7 to reject the FDA’s conclusion that amalgam was safe. By the same voting margin, the Panel also concluded the paper did not objectively and clearly present the current state of knowledge about mercury exposure and health effects of dental amalgam. The Panel did not say amalgam was unsafe, only that its safety could not be established based upon the data provided." A recent lawsuit has essentially forced the FDA to update their page on dental amalgam. In any case, there is plenty of literature out there. The page is badly organized and doesn't even have nearly all of the sources that could be added, so it certainly would not fit within due weight within the dental amalgam page. In 1995 FASEB, a fairly respectable group, published a review entitled: "Mercury exposure from "silver" tooth fillings: emerging evidence questions a traditional dental paradigm." Since Mutter's paper is in German, that source, though lacking in the newer information, provides an interesting freely available full-text overview for those interested. II  | (t - c) 04:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. The claims ScienceApologist makes are blatantly false.  Among other esteemed scientists, Alfred Stock, one of the greatest chemists of the last century, published about the pernicious effects these fillings can have.  Among others, one of the top dentists at Walter Reed has urged that amalgam fillings be banned immediately.  European dental societies do (tacitly) acknowledge that amalgam fillings can cause serious health problems in some people.--Alterrabe (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep The FDA investigated the the whole thing and concluded it was not safe, Scandinavian countries ban it, and yet the American Dental Association claims there's no health risks. Sounds like a existing controversy to me. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Good arguments are given by others above. MaxPont (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as per everyone but the nominator. Edward321 (talk) 15:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, but cover the controversy - WP is not the place to fight it out. Amalgam (dentistry) is long enough and the concerns have received enough mainstream coverage that a spinout article is indicated. The present article, however, is in serious violation of WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:31, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone else, the controversy exists alright. JBsupreme (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Not only is there a strong case that amalgams pose a danger -- with two advanced industrialized nations banning the substance -- but to claim that no controversy even *exists* smacks of, in the words of the nominator, "drummed up" "crazy weirdo" POV. Madscribbler (talk) 10:36, 25 November 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.