Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people related to quackery or anti-quackery


 * 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 speedy delete at author's request (WP:CSD G7), plus WP:SNOW here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

List of people related to quackery or anti-quackery

 * — (View AfD)

Weak article, just a list and overall will just be used for more POV-pushing TheDoctorIsIn 19:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Unlikely to be npov unless there's an official term for "quackery" out there. Just H 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Follow Articles for deletion/List of articles related to quackery, whatever its result is. I'd vote keep or move to project-space, but I see no significant difference between the articles.  Consistancy here may be better than correctness.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Weasel language in the opening paragraph results in saying nothing and opens up inclusion into this list to an infinite amount of subjects. In a word: Pointless. Levine2112 21:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete/salt. Massive BLP vio here by labeling all these people pejoratively. F.F.McGurk 21:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete hopelessly POV GabrielF 22:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt, per WP:BLP. The intro says "people related to the subject of quackery or anti-quackery," so if you go the their article and it doesn't say they are ANTI-quackery, then Wikipedia is calling them a quack for their scientific, medical or nutritional claims, which is libel per se and clearly violates our policy on defamatory statements, at least for those who are still living. Note that this is often a more libellous claim than is explicitly made in the article. We cannot hide behind the sophistry that it is in the eye of the beholder. Edison 22:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per BLP.--Hughgr 22:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * DELETE per Edison, BLP, McGurk, Gabriel, H, Levine, Hughr, Doc, God, and those Wikipedians not yet born. I would have to agree with the rest of the Wiki universe. Hopelessly POV. I don't see this new enemies "list" as being anything other than a sequal to the old list. Why not call it Son of Doesn't Pass the Smell Test!?!  If something smells bad, does less of it suddenly smell good?  I don't think so. Steth 23:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt, per Edison. It's possible a similar list could be constructed with a more NPOV title.  And with a NPOV title, there will be no need to group together the "quacks" and "anti-quacks".  - Aagtbdfoua 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Edison. What does salt mean? CuTop 01:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:SALT. Briefly it means protect a page, in this instance, because a page with this title could never be a NPOV article.  - Aagtbdfoua 02:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt. Neverending NPOV issues. --Dematt 04:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - This one doesn't even make an attempt at being a project, it's just a list. -- Kesh 05:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and pave. Ambiguous, arbitrary, attack & POV promotion list. A rerun of Cat:"Quakery" and List of QRA.--I&#39;clast
 * Delete and bury. A laundry list does not an article make.Jance 08:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:41, 9 January 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.