Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of questionable diagnostic tests

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) –Davey2010^Talk 01:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of questionable diagnostic tests

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

items have individual articles and a directory of them already exists in the form of Category Alternative medical diagnostic methods, title doesn't seem encyclopedic and NPOV Cyrej (talk) 13:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2015 August 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is a concern with running afoul of WP:NPOV and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH here, but that's not a reason to delete. I would much rather prefer that we cite secondary or tertiary sources calling the group of these tests questionable. Whether you agree with QuackWatch or not, I think we can all agree that it has an obvious POV and fails WP:MEDRS. All of this logic applies to List of questionable diseases as well, which looks to be in similar shape. shoy (reactions) 18:28, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Everymorning (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — JJMC89 (T·E·C) 04:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator). This is not duplicative of the category because it allows for discussion of tests which are questionable in some respects while valid in others. Example: thermography may be valid in some circumstances but as a primary diagnostic test for breast cancer (something for which it is aggressively promoted by quacks), it is very questionable indeed. Guy (Help!) 22:28, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Though maybe rename it to scam, fake, quack, or if you must, psuedoscientific diagnostic tests. Jerod Lycett (talk) 19:29, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guy. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:21, 25 August 2015 (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.