Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poly-MVA


 * 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. (non-admin closure) jcc (tea and biscuits) 21:31, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Poly-MVA

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Purported CAM modality with no indication of notability beyond inclusion in a directory. This topic falls way below the standard required of a medical topic. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable quackery. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC) Actually, Keep seems to be notable quackery. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete: Fails GNG Keep: Oh, this have coverage in reliable sources. :) KGirlTrucker81talk what I'm been doing  23:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * & : but see below: this is on the radar of the big cancer centres (remember it has other names) and they cover it reliably. Alexbrn (talk) 04:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep It's quackery alright, but notable quackery. The American Cancer Society have a dedicated 3-page entry for it in their book American Cancer Society Complete Guide to Complementary and Alternative Cancer, and (under its other name Polydox) the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center has this content on it. Wikipedia should be providing reliable information on this rubbish, based on these strong sources. Alexbrn (talk) 04:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * what is the "directory" you refer to (I see Quackwatch have it on a list here). The text of the ACS content is pretty much all avaialble here. Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - likely-notable quackery per Alexbrn. (Alex has considerably improved it from previous ...) I've also forked a copy on RationalWiki under CC by-sa, in case consensus kills it here, but I hope it won't - David Gerard (talk) 10:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Has enough coverage and the sentiment of deleting because it's quackery doesn't make sense to me because one would logically want the page to exist to notify people that it's quackery. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:31, 20 August 2016 (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.