Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myers' cocktail


 * 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. Sources strong enough to establish notability. Tone 16:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Myers' cocktail
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

The significance of the subject is established only by self-published sources. causa sui ×  02:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: SPCs, appears to be promoting a fringe remedy promoted by a non-notable doctor. Language such as "treated many patients with an intravenous nutrient cocktail therapy for over 25 years" sounds like quackery from daytime television commercials. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 10:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be a notable alternative medicine even if it is quack like. Checking google scholar reveals quite a few sources, I don't understand the nominators claim that "The significance of the subject is established only by self-published sources" - this is the case with one of the papers cited but not the other and plenty others exist. Problems with the wording of an article is not a reason to delete it - edit it instead! Smartse (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding some sources would surely improve the article and obviate this AFD. Please be my guest. causa sui  ×  06:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. google scholar search reveals several clinical trial published in reputable journals, I added one to the article already.  The article needs to be rewritten, which I will work on, but not deleted. J04n(talk page) 12:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I just found this news article which seems to confirm that this is definitely notable. Smartse (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2009 (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.