Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackademic medicine


 * 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Quackademic medicine

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is a term used primarily by one blogger (David Gorski), which lacks coverage in reliable sources independent of his blogs (by which I mean both Respectful Insolence and Science-Based Medicine). Fails WP:NEO and WP:GNG. Everymorning  talk  19:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Everymorning   talk  19:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Vague neologism with little penetration in media. Googling yields 186 distinct results. Delete with prejudice. NickCT (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - For the record; the article creator was banned for socking. NickCT (talk) 19:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Ridiculous. TimidGuy (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete per A-11 and so tagged. Ridiculous indeed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Changing !vote as CSD tag was removed (probably correctly). Subject clearly fails WP:N and WP:NEO. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTDICTIONARY 'X is a Y term' should surely be a clue here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and not promotion. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Contrary to nominator statement, term is actually used by at least two bloggers, three excellent refs already in article. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 12:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the term "Quackademic medicine" is not used in the second source (Novella), and the third source doesn't appear to be at all reliable-just a blogspot post on the blog of a non-notable person. Everymorning   talk  16:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO. Artw (talk) 16:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment This article (Quackademic Medicine) has been copy and pasted in it's entirety into the article titled Quackery. Not sure if this affectes the discussion here? 108.181.201.237 16:23, January 11, 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Reverted. Thanks for the heads up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any effect here. This is about notability, the basic criteria for article creation. The content is perfectly legitimate as content in other articles, even if this article were deleted. A kneejerk reversion is not proper. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I have replied on the talk page of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete A sentence describing this concept could be put into the article on "quackery" but there is nothing distinct or notable here.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  16:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking notability. Some coverage in the Quackery article would be due, as others have said. Alexbrn talk 16:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect Why not just put the majority of this article under Quackery in a section on Academic Medicine flavor of quackery? It's a unique subflavor of Quackery that revolves around spoofing academic medicine, not just establishing oneself as an alternative medicine practitioner. I think it deserves at least some mention on Wiki, probably under a subheading.--Shibbolethink (talk) 19:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - I wouldn't strongly oppose a redirect, but I can't really see the value given the limited use of the term.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I get the feeling that most (WP:SNOW) are agreed that a separate article isn't warranted simply because of lack of notability and neologism concerns. There is also some recognition that brief mention in the quackery article would be acceptable. I agree with both POV. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:33, 13 January 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.