Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer Cure

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 – essay of original research that's not salvageable as an neutral encyclopedia article that could be userfied. This is its fifth recreation, so it's been salted. KrakatoaKatie 02:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Cure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Indiscernible. Reads like an advertisement and sourcing is questionable. Previously uploaded as a copyvio of this web site but corrected copyvio issues so can't be speedied again. Smells of possible WP:HOAX to me. Redfarmer (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• There is already an endorsed Prod on the article, so I see no reason for this AfD. If the prod is removed, maybe, but this won't delete it any faster, so what's the purpose? I (talk) 21:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the other editor added the prod at virtually the same time I nominated it for AfD. If the admins want to wait for the prod, I'll endorse speedy close. Redfarmer (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems redundant, but I do agree that is better to delete at AfD, which allows G4 to be invoked. So delete for the same reasons I listed in the prod. I (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, advert/essay. It even says "ABM isn't a cure for cancer" Nakon 21:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, doesn't meet WP:FRINGE, no reliable sources. The faster this leaves the better (someone might believe this is for real), but I can't see any obvious and immediate reason to speedy delete it. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This appears to be an essay detailing one person’s battle with cancer. I’m glad that the author’s cancer is in remission, but this is not encyclopedic material. —Travis^talk 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I endorsed the prod but I endorse the AfD even more, as it will help keep this from being recreated over and over without addressing the issues. Fails WP:NOT on several counts: original research essay, soapbox, guidebook, and probably several other things as well. --Fabrictramp (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unencyclopaedic original research. Also does anyone know how the copyvio has been fixed as the source webpage still clearly states Copyright © 2006 faqshelp. All Rights Reserved. Distribution Or Republishing Is Not Permitted & if this is the case it should be speedied. nancy ^(talk) 22:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is taken from the website noted in the nomination above. The author has placed a GFDL notice on the page. —Travis^talk 22:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And this morning the original copyright notice has gone too nancy ^(talk) 08:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I may not have included the Japanese scientific research references but someone else can look those up again and edit the page. This is real science not merely one persons experience, and therefore encyclopaedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris-nz (talk • contribs) 22:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not at all encyclopaedic. Fails in many areas per Fabrictramp and others, above. Tim Ross 22:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• What changes are suggested for inclusion ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris-nz (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None - it's unsalvageable. It needs to be deleted. Dethme0w (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's all original research. Dethme0w (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it's spam - one of the links is directly to a shopping cart!!! Looks like it's snowing. Dethme0w (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Snowball delete, article is an unsalvageable mountain of original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it need to go under 'Cancer research' or some other subject that searching on 'Cancer Cures' finds. Chris-nz (talk) 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I’m sorry, but I don’t think you understand the criteria that an article needs to meet to be included in Wikipedia. I have left a message on your talk page with a number of helpful links. I particularly suggest that you read the material linked under the “Policies and Guidelines” header. Cheers —Travis^talk 23:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to read the links I left for you on your talk page a couple of creations ago of the article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete OR in the extreme -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:47, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-encyclopedic, clear candidate for prompt deletion. Pundit|utter 23:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article only has a link to a product cart for completeness, I have no relationship with the supplier, and the link can be removed. --Chris-nz (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It only appears to be Original Research because I've not included links to the Japanese research. --Chris-nz (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is essentially a Wikipedia-based infomercial. It's definitely original research, and in addition to that, it's actually written in the first person, and signed...Calgary (talk) 01:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor problems that can be easily remedied. I've now added links to a couple of research articles, and photos. --Chris-nz (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the product links --Chris-nz (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a prostate cancer survivor this entry makes no sense to me and I found nothing here that has any validity or supported by fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethompson76051 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 14 January 2008

Strong Delete per nom and for reasons already by other users stated above. Mh29255 (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I suggest that the creator set the sourced (with strong emphasis) statements to Agaricus brasiliensis. The mushroom is used in cancer research but I don't think it has been known as a universal cure. I know people are upset with the title and rightly so. But I assume good faith in the creator. I beleive he is simply a survivor telling his story to others but he chose the wrong venue.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should the page be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Moving_a_page to 'Cancer Research', or userfied ? --123.100.115.141 (talk) 08:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'd support userfying, but I think it's gone too far for that now and is probably a lost cause, the decision will be to delete and if so that should apply to the userfied page were it moved in the meantime. It's now been recreated several times, and it's borderline as to whether enough of it can be saved to make an article anyway. And it's on the web in several places now, so there's no problem merging the verifiable information into other articles. So no vote from me, it would at best complicate things needlessly IMO. Andrewa (talk) 12:39, 16 January 2008 (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.