Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immune cycle


 * 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 delete. ✗ plicit  11:53, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Immune cycle

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

speculative, unscientific and self-promotional material with problems outstanding LotFourteen (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC) Creating deletion discussion for Immune cycle
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I am getting some hits on this topic in published cancer research in particular, but I don't understand the content as a non-medical person well enough to comment on it's potential use in verifying this article for GNG purposes. To me this would seem to need the attention of someone with a background in medicine to properly evaluate. I am going to put in a request for comment at WP:WikiProject Medicine. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:29, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This article seems to rely on press reports and, to a lesser extent, primary research reports in journals. It is severely lacking in WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary review papers. I hope the listing at WikiProject Medicine will bring in some subject-matter experts, of whom I am not one. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  12:05, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Opposed. Rather than delete the article, change the name instead to "cancer immune cycle". There are at least two review articles that are WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary review papers. PMID: 32590316 & PMID: 28109906 Jaredroach (talk) 06:39, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Links to those: and . Phil Bridger (talk) 10:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Delete . This article may list peer-reviewed papers. However, the existence of the immense cycle is not settled science. Until a cycle is shown to exist or generates significant speculation, what place does it have in an encyclopedia? This page exists to promote the work of one individual in order to boost their research profile. The researcher has told local journalists that he cannot secure funding over a twenty year period (Adelaide Now, "Cure de Force: SA doctor’s cancer vaccine coup", May 14, 2022). LotFourteen (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, LotFourteen,
 * I'm striking your vote here as your AFD nomination is considered to be your Delete vote and no one can cast more than one vote in an AFD discussion. I'd just like to note that all of your 15 edits have been focused at removing Brendon Coventry's article and articles about his work from Wikipedia so you seem to be the definition of an SPA. Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. While this might be a valid subject, the page is of very low quality, the phenomenon is poorly studied, and the results are contradictory. Too soon. My very best wishes (talk) 23:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete As it stands, this doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The cancer immune cycle (referenced above by Jaredroach) may scantly support a very brief page on the cancer immune cycle, but that nascent topic is better discussed in Cancer immunotherapy, where it might merit a sentence or two. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 17:31, 22 October 2022 (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.