Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MALOVA


 * 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. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

MALOVA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

After doing a web search on this topic I could find no information on this organization. I would fix it myself but I can't find any sources. It is a one sentence article with some wikilinks. It is non-encyclopedic and seems to be a definition at best. It's edit history is confusing and doesn't seem to clear up the question of why the article even exists.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 01:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - I searched for this topic and cannot find it in any search - at all. There seem to be many people who have this for a surname; This article may be a hoax.
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 01:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Not an organization so much as a case-control study. It's definitely real and there are a number of peer-reviewed articles backing this up, such as   In addition, there are the sources I just added to the article. Everymorning (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 03:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is not a hoax at all but appears to be a well-cited study. search for kræft+malova or cancer+malova and you'll find it. —Мандичка YO 😜 03:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: what are the notability criteria for a case-control study? I can't see any particular value in this study having its own article. Sure, this study can be used as a citation to back up claims in other articles, but why have an article on it that seems destined to remain a stub? Bondegezou (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The peer reviewed documentation shows the notability of the subject. The fact that it is a stub, and may remain a stub (although I don't necessarily agree with that assessment) doesn't have a bearing on its notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:01, 27 August 2015 (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.