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The result was Speedy Keep - Nomination withdrawn, no delete !votes (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair Method[edit]

Sinclair Method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article I feel fails WP:NOTABLE and is a WP:SYNTHESIS, using references which do not discuss the sinclair method, and acts as an WP:ADVERT for the sinclair method website. A search using quotation marks for "sinclair method" in pubmed turned up zero results. A single review paper does mention the method but it is written by none other than sinclair himself. The other references are either not relevant at all or by sinclair himself. The method has no mainstream acceptance that I can tell outside of Dr Sinclair's personal website mentioned above and apparently wikipedia.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There does seem to be some acknowledgment of the method outside of peer reviewed research, in news papers and some low quality books. I think this is largely because of its mention for years on wikipedia's alcoholism article read by millions over the years and sinclair's promotion on radio. I shall leave it to the community to decide the article's fate. I guess the question I feel is, is it a notable fringe or minority theory or treatment worthy of a wikipedia article or is the wikipedia article a commercial advertisement?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There appears to be multiple sources for this. The article needs to be cleaned up, yes, but certainly not deleted. Sources: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. Silverseren^C 00:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. Hmmm, you have put a doubt in my mind now. Maybe I was applying WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTABILITY too strongly and jumped the gun? Perhaps it is notable enough to keep as an article after all. I shall wait for other wikipedians to weigh in. Why not vote keep as you think it should be kept Silver. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, i'm also going to go and put those sources in as ELs. Silverseren^C 01:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. Silverseren^C 00:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have tagged this article for rescue. Silverseren^C 01:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The number of sources about the article verify notability. Silverseren^C 01:19, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw. I would like to withdraw this article from articles for deletion. Silver seren has persuaded me of the articles notability. I jumped the gun when I saw no pubmed hits and a not very professionally designed website, (I should have checked google books). Apologies.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:41, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.