Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microevolutionary model of cancer


 * 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 of the debate was DELETE. Mo0 [ talk ] 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Microevolutionary model of cancer
This is a very in-depth treatment of a scientific theory promulgated by one book. The two editors defending the page's content deny that this is actually an attempt at orthomolecular oncology, but all the same the concept gets <300 Google hits and fails any form of notability to warrant this. JFW | T@lk  15:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. As a second option: a much reduced NPOV version on Cancer: Nutrition and Survival, the title of the book in question. JFW | T@lk  15:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete for the following reasons:
 * This "theory" does not contain rational arguments. It is a confused bundle of fantasy, semi-t*ruths, and miscomprehended biology.
 * There is no conventional evidence base.
 * There is no peer review.
 * The title of the theory is egregious misrepresentation of a paper published in a reputable scientific journal (BJC) several years ago. This latter paper is searcheable on Pubmed.
 * In addition, the proponents of this theory are causing a significant amount of disruption on the carcinognesis page. They are not amenable to measured discussion. Whilst this is not a reason for deletion per se, it should be taken into consideration. The microevolutionary model being touted has no real distinction from the host of other pseudoscientific medical theories, yet it has managed to get a specific mention on the Carcinognesis page for no other reason than the bloody-mindedness of its proponents. This does not help the credibility of the rest of the page. Jellytussle 17:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Reyk 09:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable pseudoscience. See talk page.  &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-13 10:37Z 
 * Weak delete. Could have slight slight slight significance. *uses fingers to indicate the significance of the article*. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 10:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Terence Ong Talk 15:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --WS 18:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete The article uses some conventional references to support a "theory" that has little to do with microevolution and arrives at the conclusion that vitamin C cures cancer. The authors of the article have repeatedly attempted to gloss over its orthomolecular roots, masking the vitamin C conclusion, despite that being the main focus of their source text. It seems to be a perfidious form of linkspam. And I suspect some sockpuppettry as well.--DocJohnny 06:09, 18 January 2006 (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.