Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alcohol enema

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. I guess that WT:MED is the place to discuss MEDRS issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol enema

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

Very dubious sourcing – none of the allegations are actually confirmed. And none of the medical information has sources which pass WP:MEDRS. Deacon Vorbis (talk) 01:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly not a wise thing to do but since when does GNG require allegations to be confirmed for notability to exist? The topic is notable simply because it generated a lot of coverage, no matter how many people were actually stupid enough to do it. But unfortunately, there are tons of hits from reliable sources (short sample: CNN, HuffPost, Jezebel, Medical Daily, NY Daily News, ABC News, LA Weekly, The Independent etc.), so notability is not a problem. Regards So Why 14:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but make WP:MEDRS-compliant notable per the sources, but stuff like experts believe that... definitely cannot be sourced to a (single!) CNN article. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a shot at cleaning the article, but it might still need further trimming. In particular the "Effects and dangers" section is based off a single expert interview; I left it because I suppose it is on the good side of the MEDRS line, but not by far. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SoWhy. Plot Spoiler (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2017 (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.