Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical Veritas


 * 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. Being tersely cited as an example of bad science doesn't lend the journal notability. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Medical Veritas

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fringe journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no coverage in reliable sources with the possible exception of a brief mention of the associated organization on Quackwatch, which is not good enough to meet WP:GNG. If I had known what our notability guidelines were in 2013, I would not have created this page. Everymorning (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I think we have an obligation to include journals like this when possible as part of our information to the readers, and there's really nowhere to put this but mainspace.  DGG ( talk ) 02:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * DGG, would you care to elaborate as to what policy your keep !vote is based on? This journal does not appear to meet WP:NJOURNALS. Everymorning (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The policy that notability is a guideline, and according to the express wording of WP:N, exceptions can be made whenever it would serve the purpose of an encyclopedia. Even if WP:N did not say that it is not the only basis for deciding, still the fundamental policy of IAR and according to fundamental policy of IAR would provide for such exceptions. It  serves the purpose of an encyclopedia for people to be able to evaluate the sources used in it.  DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh. . .DGG? Your argument looks like WP:LOSE, WP:VALINFO. Are you sure you want to violate Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions? --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:N states "Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time" -this journal has not, and "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1.It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline" - this journal does not. Yes, it also states "occasional exceptions may apply." but this isn't one of those.  At best, there could be a redirect from this title to Vaccine controversies which could include a few words on the journal.  It is interesting (but is it relevent??) that the article creator is also the nominator of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I am not unsympathetic to DGG's position, but I'm unable to support it by policy and unwilling to open the Pandora's Box of invoking IAR to retain this on "public good" grounds. It's been written about by several prominent science bloggers, but those do not constitute reliable sources. It has been included on Quackwatch's list of nonrecommended periodicals, but that's not significant coverage. As a tertiary source, for better or worse, we are bound by what others publish and discuss. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - As an actual medical publication, Medical Vertias has little value. However, as a disinformation source, it's been referenced by / referred to different books, magazines, and newspapers. Here you have The Australian reporting on a controversy over university-paid funds going to a Medical Veritas-related effort. The journal gets panned as "a conspiracy-driven publication". Here you have Forbes labeling the journal as a "repository of dubious science" and criticizing the distortion of CDC-related data done in the journal as well as elsewhere. Infamy is still notability, although I don't really have strong feelings either way on this article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You also have this in a Cambridge University Press work on pediatric medicine as just one of the examples of the negative references made to the journal in books. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:59, 29 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.