Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackwatch


 * 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 -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Content is not encyclopedic, seems to be authored by the organization portrayed, it might be considered blatant advert, sources are mostly self referencing and magazine articles in which the organization is mentioned secondarily Jenny Len ☤ 14:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. If this nomination were about a person this nomination would be a BLP violation bordering on libel. As it is it reveals either a (1) very limited understanding of the site and article, (2) a pretty warped bad faith POV attack, (3) gaming the system by misusing an AfD, (4) a poor understanding of the inclusion criteria for articles here, or (5) all of the above. I don't know exactly which. In any case it should not have been raised. There are indeed other types of problems with the editing atmosphere around the article, none of which justify this waste of time. When is this improper AfD going to be ended? There is one comfort and side benefit from all of this - at best for the nominator a Pyrrhic victory, yet, even though there is no hope of this being passed, the long-lasting effects a la a Pyrrhic victory will be harvested as a win by the pro-Quackwatch (IOW anti-quackery) POV. This is all in harmony with the policies here which state that the appropriate weight should be given to such topics - the scientific majority is given the weight it deserves. Message to the nominatress - before nominating articles for AfD (as you did this one), please exercise due care to ensure that the article fails the policy or guideline in question. Needlessly disrupting Wikipedia (either unintentionally or to make a WP:POINT) is frowned upon and will neither get you any friends nor increase your credibility. -- Fyslee/talk 05:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think if this AFD has shown us one thing is that many people feel that the existing article is a lopsided one written more as a promotional piece rather than a neutral article. There is a group of editors hellbent on excluding/removing any and all criticism (of which Quackwatch garners quite a bit). The sort of article ownership is frowned on here at Wikipedia. Bringing this to light to other Wikipedians certainly was not a waste of time. No one is obligated to comment here, so if you feel it is a waste of your time, then do what you like. I haven't found this process to be disruptive whatsoever, but helpful. I encourage more neutral editors to come to the article and help turn it from a PR piece to an encyclopdic article. Bottomline, Quackwatch is a critical site and thus one can expect it receives a lot of critical backlash. Right now, this side of the Quackwatch story is hardly told. And - for anyone following the current discussion on Talk:Quackwatch - of the remaining two minor pieces of criticism, the "pro-Quackwatch" editors (as Fyslee calls them) are trying to remove even one of those. There is systematic whitewash at play here and again I encourage some article supervision by some more neutral and expert Wikipedians. Thanks. In conclusion, I do think that Quackwatch passes the notability threshold and should be kept as an article; it is just that the current article is far too promotional. The biased POV at play here is exemplified above by Fyslee, where he aligns Quackwatch with "the scientific majority" and thus writes off all of its detractors as minorities which need not be mentioned in the article, but rather swept under the rug with edit warring and ludicrous policy arguments which at the root are tantamount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT at best. I certainly feel that this AfD is over and can be closed expeditiously. I hope what it has shed light on though will stay with us and that we have a better, more complete, article to look forward to in the future. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions.   —--Rrburke(talk) 15:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Well referenced, appears notable. If you think it reads like an advertisement you should edit it, not delete it. --Hornet35 14:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment, may in fact be a  sockpuppet.--Isotope23 talk 17:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Besides, the nomination is made in bad faith. Digwuren 14:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you prove this charge? Realkyhick 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I can point you towards User talk:Isotope23/Archive 11, which, to my knowledge, is the first where Jennylen raised the "issue" of this article. Digwuren 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, and please try and actually give some sort of reasoning for your opinion...--Isotope23 talk 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not necessary, as the nomination is absurd on its face. It's a prime example of a kook trying to pretend a skeptic is another kook, and a fringe one at that. Digwuren 18:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, it isn't "necessary", but you run the risk of your opinion being discounted because it isn't supported. I won't be closing this because I've been administratively involved in the article, but if I was I would discard your opinion as an WP:IDONTLIKE vote.--Isotope23 talk 13:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case, let's spell it out explicitly: the nomination does not provide any valid basis for article deletion, and is, in fact, deliberately misleading. If there is no reason for deletion, the default option is keep. Digwuren 15:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This seems like an unneccessary personal attack. Please consider removing. -- Levine2112 discuss 23:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Under WP:SPADE, there's no reason for removing this. Digwuren 09:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is most unfortunate that the discussion has been carried to the grounds of "defending what I want" with discredit. I don't think that to carry here the same discussion bteween "supporters" and "non supporters" of the organization, as it was happening in the edition of the article, will help, this is about criteria for deletion and it was presented in good faith, nothing less nothing more. Some people also try to carry here the same groups debating at Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, that is not necessary, please don't project. This is not about Quackwatch but about an article which after having for some time the chance to change, is still PR and qualifies in my view for deletion, that's all. The energy should be used in building a good WP article instead of mending the pieces of something that has no mending. And of course, WP:NPA and WP:CIV Jenny Len ☤ 07:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Well-known site; well-referenced article that easily meets WP:WEB.  Really dubious nomination.  --Rrburke(talk) 14:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Self referencing, authored by bias, tries to transmit an "image" of the subject not encyclopedic information. It has been protected for a while.  Dao  ken  15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep well referenced article, meets WP:WEB. Hut 8.5 15:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There are a couple of legit citations, and the subject is for real, so it stays. It could use some editing, like most Wiki pages. MarkBul 16:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Yes, the subject is a divisive one and the quality of the article is suboptimal. But the topic is undoubtedly notable - see the various secondary sources provided. The site has been reviewed by The Consultant Pharmacist, JAMA, US News and World Report, Forbes - and has been mentioned in a more minor context in many other sources (again detailed in the article). It's also been the topic of at least some notable criticism. While I would almost rather the article go away simply because of the nastiness that surrounds it on Wikipedia, I don't think there's any stretch of the imagination by which this subject fails WP:WEB. MastCell Talk 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As is, belongs to AfD, with more "no-club-members" authors and better third sourcing, the article could deserve a place even if notability is limited to USA only. ℒibrarian  2  16:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Notability is not USA-only; see e.g. this search of searchmedica.co.uk SearchMedica - The GP's search engine. The same search of its USA counterpart searchmedica.com is also interesting in this context. Avb 09:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in third-party sources per WP:WEB. The vast majority of the sources are pages at Quackwatch's website, which also fails to satisfy WP:SELFPUB ("the article is not based primarily on [self-published] sources"). The exceptions are generally news articles including very brief mention of the subject. Jakew 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Article's sources seem a bit heavy on self-referencing, but still enough reliable sources given. POV problems, but those are somewhat unavoidable given the nature of the subject. Realkyhick 17:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, seems to have enough reliable sources amid all the self refs. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 17:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep, the article is a POV mess and has a bit too much reliance on WP:SELFPUB, but at the core it meets WP:WEB.--Isotope23 talk 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Perhaps some issues over neutrality and the use of self-references, but this is a notable enough organisation, its website alone being in operation for over a decade, and with thousands of ghits. &mdash; BillC talk 19:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep page has over 30 sources, at least 15 or which look to be not by the org/org's leader. Well-known organisation/site.Merkinsmum 20:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keepas per comments by Merkinsmum. Also, Quackwatch is well known and is one site that helps find the difficult alternates.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  20:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep From what I've seen, Wikipedia's threshold for notability is quite low. The U.S. News & World Report, Journal of the American Medical Association, Journal of Scientific Exploration, The Village Voice, and Forbes magazine refs look like enough to keep it.  But its notability is rather low, as acknowledged by the fact that someone saw fit to write a section of the article called "Notability."  I think it should be better sourced if possible. ––– Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - No criteria for deletion is given.
 * Jennylen claims the "Content is not encyclopedic" - this is not a reason to delete.
 * "seems to be authored by the organization portrayed" - this is not a reason to delete. If Jennylen has any evidence to back this accusation, a COI report should be started.
 * "it might be considered blatant advert" - "it might be"? this is the only deletion criteria given and it's unclear even to the editor creating the AfD if it is.
 * "sources are mostly self referencing and magazine articles in which the organization is mentioned secondarily" - this is not a reason to delete.
 * The article needs work, but none of the editors above have given any criteria for deletion. There are more than enough sources provided to meet WP:WEB as noted above by others. --Ronz 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but start over. The article as is has been mostly written and protected by Quackwatch adherrents and supporters (some have even worked for Quackwatch directly). This is why the current version of this article reads like a PR marketing brochure. Even just today as the article became unprotected, one of Quackwatch's chief adherrents effectively added some more "whitewash" to the already fluffy fluff piece. And though Quackwatch is most notable for the controversy surrounding its critics, I have personally watched helplessly as these adherrents have edit warred the criticism section down to just a few short sentences (whereas, it was once rich with criticisms from a whole host of notable sources, as MastCell alludes to above). I've been involved with this article for quite some time and it seems that my mere presence there stirs up animosity from the adherrents. That being said, when this article is deleted and/or rewritten, I would agree to step aside and let fresh eyes construct the new NPOV article if all of the adherents would agree to do the same. Sound fair? -- Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 23:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Deletion is not a solution for the content and behavioral problems you describe. --Ronz 01:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - The romantic visualization of the doomed attempts of a lonesome NPOV warrior singlehandedly defending the encyclopedia's neutrality against hordes of pseudoskeptics certainly sheds some light on Levine2112's mission here. His self-imposed article ban (or proposed POW exchange, one Levine leaving the article freeing up a host of adherents to go elsewhere and spend their time productively) seemed attractive to me until I realized what Levine2112 would be doing with all the lost time thus regained. Avb 10:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Huh? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 16:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: The subject is notable hence the various sources and references provided in the article. The argument(s) to delete appear confused and none involve Wikipedia policy.  Shot info  23:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep There are no good reasons given to delete it and the article is sourced. Nick mallory 00:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Nick mallory, MastCell, Ronz et al. Avb 00:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Needs work and more secondary sources, but appears to meet the relevant policies. Dbromage  [Talk]  00:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and close per WP:SNOW. THF 01:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. None of the arguements to delete are both correct and valid deletion arguments.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep agreed. Wonderstruck 18:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Weak keep. Needs third-party sources, but seems notable. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry 05:45, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep there are more than enough third party sources, and way more than the minimal notability. a example, if anything, of a highly notable organization. Those who dislike its goals or practices should not be trying to delete it. In this case, I do see how one might well doubt the good faith of the arguments. I think its a pretty good article too, well balanced, and with many contributors.   DGG (talk) 06:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You are unfortunately prejudging. I presented the article to AfD because after a good time protected and a good time under debate, the article continued to be a PR plataform instead of an encyclopedic article. The organization's aims may be good from my professional (MD) point of view, but that doesn't justify a PR article which self reference and qualify as advert, I would rather see this article deleted and a new encyclopedic article instead of it than to let continue a never ending dispute characterized by opposition of well defined groups . A new, Wiki compliant article with encyclopedic content and far less selfreferencing substituted by reliable sourcing will provide more credibility to the organization's entry than the present article. The authors had the time and chance to change it, it continues as PR and mainly self referenced, must be deleted. On the other hand I sincerely hope a good article shows up substituting it but Wikicompliant. Jenny <sup style="color:#00551B;">Len ☤ 07:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of one's view on the merits of the content, proposing for deletion seems to me a remarkably disproportionate response. I apologize for any implication about whatever any particular individual's actual motives may have been.  DGG (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Really, the solution to a perceived problem with the tone or POV of the article is not to delete it and start over. That resolves none of the underlying issues, and there's absolutely no reason why the same people won't be having the same arguments on the brand-new article. MastCell Talk 17:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then what is the solution to make this article become less of a PR piece and more a neutral encyclopedic article? My thought is to have the "same people" (of which I am certainly included) take a break from the article and allow new and hopefully more neutral parties whip the article into shape. But do you or anyone else have an alternate suggestion? I am definitely open to considering anything at this point. -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss  18:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Adding new editors without a pre-established opinion can be helpful. The article is probably never going to be uncontroversial, by the nature of its subject. "Skeptical" articles are second only to nationalistic ones in terms of their inherent contentiousness and volume of related ArbCom cases. The solution to making the article more encyclopedic is to base it on good sources. There are quite a few good independent secondary sources dealing with Quackwatch, some critical, some supportive, and some merely analytical. Problem: there are also a lot of truly crappy/unreliable/non-encyclopedic sources out there on Quackwatch. The challenge is to highlight the good sources and ignore the bad ones. The problem is agreeing on where to draw the line. Honestly, speaking only for myself, I'm in self-imposed exile from any article relating to Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett, etc for my own sanity. With the energy expended in a week of discussion at Talk:Quackwatch, one could power the Eastern Seaboard, or at least write a featured article or two. MastCell Talk 19:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (-: Truer words have never been spoken. So would you suggest an RfC to get new editors without a pre-established opinion? What is the best way to determine if a source meets V/RS when two groups of editors disagree? WP:RS/N? -- <b style="color:#996600; font-family:times new roman,times,serif;">Levine2112</b> <sup style="color:#774400; font-size:small; padding:1px; border:1px #996600 dotted; background-color:#FFFF99;">discuss 19:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This organization is notable. Axl 06:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Article is major need of non-biasing editing. The more 3rd party sources the better, but will be difficult. Repeating the Mission Statement of an organization always has to be done carefully, if at all, and not in the intro.  Organization is very noteworthy, but its claims of scientific veracity are dubious.  It is a highly political, contentious organization with an agenda far beyond "health information."  Article should get specific about what the organization attempts to discredit, how and why. Historical connection to American Medical Association's "Committee on Quakery" should be explored. See articles such as Wilk v. American Medical Association, Chiropractic, History of osteopathic, etc.  Lots of interesting history related to this group/founder. Osteopathic Freak  <sup style="color:purple;">T (usurpation of User:Hopping in progress) 06:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Many of the editors who have shown up here seem less invested in promoting or fighting the subject than some -- but by no means all -- of the article's regulars. If this interesting group of editors would be able to spend some time on the article, editing it may be possible again without incessant & stifling interference by a handful of editors who are engaging in real-life conflicts instead of describing them to the degree acceptable sources allow. In summary, this article desperately needs more editors who have no particular personal bias here, or can set it aside, in favor of producing a neutral, encyclopedic article. Summarizing the summary: please help. Avb 10:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * DELETE This page wages a campaign of vilification, in the media, against any researcher whose ideas its author doesn't like. There's a strong suggestion of Scientific Fundamentalism here, because Barrett is talking theologically (IN ABSOLUTES) almost all the time, and resorts to modern scientific epistemology only when a new model affronts his prejudices. This site is saying, in effect, "The models of science we want to believe are 'basic physical laws' and hence absolutes and no others exist but the models we don't want to believe are -- only models. DETETE, in order to lower the level of slander at Wikipedia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.224.10.229 (talk) 15:28, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Criticisms of the website can be handled in the body of the article.  This isn't a rationale for deletion, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  --Rrburke(talk) 17:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Any problems with the article should be solved by editing, not deleting. What makes Quackwatch so special is that its clear POV makes it the canary in the mine," and many who find their beliefs and practices challenged and/or exposed would love to kill that canary (hence the opposition to this article, often using other excuses). We all know what happens in a mine when the canary dies and no one notices it has died. The same applies to Quackwatch. The assassination attempts continually attempted in the real world must not be allowed to succeed here at Wikipedia. It's notability has not arisen in a vacuum. It has a POV and is not afraid to stick up for it with references and documentation. Quackwatch does not claim to be a neutral source, but a source heavily indebted to the scientific mainstream POV. It judges methods by those standards and finds some of them wanting. That makes it unpopular in non-mainstream circles. Fortunately the reliability of sources is not determined by their popularity. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b>/<b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 01:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, special pleading. The problem with the canaries is that some of the heroic little bodies have been found to be laced with H5N1 or SARS, and the townspeople are starting to grumble about mystery epidemics over the last several decades. After many bad experiences, the townies & miners are starting to insist on accurate "Right to Know" information from the owners and distributors of the birds, so far mostly ignored.--I&#39;clast 09:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh?!?  Shot info  09:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: Regardless of the personal feelings individuals may have about the website, no one has clearly articulated what specific wiki policies this article violates. Djma12 (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep: I am not an author of the article but the site and organization is very notable. See the notability section in the article. Pocopocopocopoco 03:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Can't understand what wiki policy this page breaks that would put it up for deletion. An informative and controversial web site. An informative wiki page. MBCF 16:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm not an editor here either, but its obviously one to be kept and improved. Its strongly science oriented and supported so deleting it would seem to me to be quite against majority oriented viewpoints. Spoctacle 03:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Reminder
 * I thinks that are worth here some reminders:
 * About why the article is for deletion see WP:DEL, in bold are possible reasons for deleting this article.

Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:
 *  Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)
 * Content not suitable for an encyclopedia
 * Copyright infringement
 * Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax)
 * Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic
 * Inappropriate user pages
 * Inflammatory redirects
 * Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
 * All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed
 * Newly-coined words or terms (i.e., neologisms).
 * Overcategorization
 * Patent nonsense or gibberish
 * Redundant templates
 * Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
 * Vandalism that is not correctable

Please also see: WP:SPAM ;

Advertisements masquerading as articles

Blatant examples of advertising masquerading as articles can be speedily deleted by tagging the articles with. Other advertisements posted on Wikipedia can be dealt with by either proposed deletion or listing them on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. ...

...When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view. Elements of articles about products or services with brand names can also be combined under a common topic or category to facilitate unbiased and collaborative information by including information about the competition and about different alternatives.




 * Some editors must also be reminded to read WP:AFD:

How to discuss an AfD


 * The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments.
 * Please have a look at the article before making a recommendation. Do not base your recommendation solely on the information supplied by the nominator. For understanding the situation it may also help to look at the history of the article.
 * Also, please read the earlier comments and recommendations. They may contain relevant arguments and further useful information.
 * Start your comments or recommendations on a new bulleted line (that is, starting with *), and sign them by adding ~ to the end. If you are responding to another editor, put your comment directly below theirs, making sure it is indented (using multiple *s).
 *  Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article.
 * Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons). Conversely, the opinions of logged in users whose accounts predate the article's AfD nomination are given more weight.
 * Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted.
 * Usually editors recommend a course of action in bold text, e.g., "Keep" or "Delete".
 * Please make only one recommendation; if you change your mind, modify your original recommendation rather than adding a new one. The recommended way of doing this is to use strike-through by enclosing a retracted statement between and, as in "Delete Speedy keep".
 * Arguments commonly used to recommend deletion are: "unverifiable" (violates WP:V), "original research" (violates WP:NOR), and "non-notable" in cases where the subject does not meet their respective notability criteria. (In the cases of non-notable biographical articles, it is better to say "does not meet WP:BIO" to avoid insulting the subject.) The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided [1], and is not in itself a reason for deletion. The argument "non-neutral point of view" (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.
 * If you wish for an article to be kept, you can improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination. You can search out references, and diffuse the deletion arguments given using policy, guidelines, and examples from our good and featured articles. If the reasons given in the nomination are addressed by editing, the nomination should be withdrawn by the nominator, and the deletion discussion will be closed by an admin.
 * Try to avoid contradictory or confusing recommendations, such as delete and merge.


 * Above is clearly stated what you must not do (keep in mind also "Please disclose whether you are an article's primary author or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article."), why the article was considered beyond salvage and the possible violations justifying deletion (keep in mind also "include, but are not limited to,"). The right thing is to avoid trying to put words in the mouth of others, to stop trying to suggest hidden agendas and act neutraly and to the point with no discussions about the article's subject itself but just about its content. ℒibrarian  2  07:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Librarian2, thank you highlighting which issues you believe the article violates. For future reference, please only list the relevant AfD issues rather than including the entire article -- it only clutters the AfD.  Disclosure: I am not affiliated with the website in any way.
 * 1) Advertising - Please specify *why* you believe this article is an advertisement, as it does not promote or endorse a specific product or service. Yes, it is about a specific internet site.  By that logic, however, we shouldn't have articles about Google either.  What is important is notability, which brings us to...
 * 2) Content not suitable for an encyclopedia - No rationale is given to support this accusation. Websites should not have a different threshold for suitability than any other topic, namely notability as addressed by neutral third party sources.  Both of which have been addressed in the article proper.
 * 3) Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources - Article has a fairly extensive and detailed citation list, so I'm not sure where this accusation is coming from.
 * As far as I can tell, no support has begin given for the accusations at hand. The complaints raised seem to simply be a large, unsupported laundry list in the hopes that the sheer volume will persuade a conclusion. Djma12 (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Lets see...
 * a) If I didn't include the whole article someone would jump saying that I just choose what to take from it (happened before)
 * b) Was not refering to you about disclosure
 * c) The article enhances the image of the org, it lacks "observer" talk
 * d) The largest percent of sources are selfreferencing
 * e) Assumptions that someone "wants" to have the article deleted are self-marginalizing, the article is assumed to be "evaluated " as deletion candidate or "evaluated" as non deletion candidate, no wanting or agendas, good faith goes a long way.
 * f) No need to insist on debate, outcome must be by the qualities of the article not the qualities of the subject or the editors involved in the AfD.
 * Thank you for sharing your opinion ℒibrarian  2  19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Abstain The problem here is not that Quackwatch isn't notable enough or does not have available V RS material.  The problem is that the article is an obdurately one sided entry that is promotional, fiercely resisting coverage of legitimate, V RS criticism, that after a year, has only marginally improved coverage, including the deletion of links soliciting donations and subscribers.  I would most regret deletion simply because of the loss of edit and talk histories that might lose prior points, perhaps inviting re-invention of the wheel.  May our "bones" (of contention) reproach the real pseudo-whatever partisans.  If this article can't be better balanced, and less an ad, I suppose stubbing it to the current intro and locking it there for 6 months might be appropriate, to chill out things.--I&#39;clast 09:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep and close this AfD. This nom is still listed? . . . is this the process now? If the article doesn't look like you think it should, delete it? (and possibly start over? To what end?)  Plenty of refs are there, if we delete this article, then we need to get rid of a lot of the rest of wikipedia.  It's notable and sourced, this nomination is ridiculous. R. Baley 09:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Bad faith nomination resulting from POV-pushing. What a bunch of crap.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:46, 3 September 2007 (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.