Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of Chronic Diseases


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Origin of Chronic Diseases

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I am nominating this article for detection because it appears to be WP:SYNTH intended to cloak the promotion of a quack remedy. We have a stable article at Chronic condition which discusses the range of chronic conditions and related lifestyle factors and is useful context for reading this one. This article, by a new editor, sets out vascular changes in organ tissue as the ‘origin’ of all chronic diseases, and picks a number of publications to cite in support of this view. This certainly gives a highly skewed presentation of what the ‘origins’ of chronic disease are. Most of the rest of the article isn’t really very coherent (not in itself a deletion reason) but the last section gives away what the real purpose of this article is - to promote someone’s new ‘thermobalancing treatment.’ Four of the article refs are authored by the inventor of this miracle gadget, which is not sourced to a medical journal. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:26, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - All disease anywhere in the body is caused by one single problem, and it just so happens there is one scientist who is the absolute expert on this, and he has a cure-all to sell you. There is no way this is WP:MEDRS compliant.  With its overly-simplistic diagnosis of the single phenomenon underlying all chronic disease to the vast tracts of borderline-incoherent text to its blatant product promotion, there is nothing here worth merging. Agricolae (talk) 06:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Quack medicine at its finest. Oaktree b (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete agree with above. Nothing worth merging here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G3. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 13:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I disagree with the nominator. This is not a WP:SYNTH because it has been published in several peer-reviewed journals such as,, , , , , etc. Freoanlsji (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , This is not a peer-reviewed journal and what even is this? https://patents.google.com/patent/US20110152986A1/en Natureium (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - I would also like to add that thermobalancing treatment is not a new concept. Freoanlsji (talk) 18:47, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I can't even figure out what this article is. From the title I thought it was a book but now I'm thinking it's a quack concept? Natureium (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s an apparently valid medical topic being used as camouflage for a particular ‘therapy’. Mccapra (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:39, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete this is not a coherent article about a single topic, it is a collection of bits and pieces attempting to support a quack theory. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. I also could not figure out what this was, book or otherwise, and agree it fails multiple criteria for inclusion. Zkidwiki (talk) 20:40, 4 November 2020 (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.