Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuro-Immune Dysfunction Syndrome

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neuro-Immune Dysfunction Syndrome

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

No good sources provided or avaliable on pubmed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be unproven science with few mentions, limited notability not up too WP:GNG. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. A Guy into Books (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Doc James that the sourcing is inadequate. Looie496 (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete insufficient MEDRS sources, and an effort to use WP as a WP:SOAPBOX, which is not what WP is for. Jytdog (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Soap Box. This article is about a notable potential pseudoscience; I do not advocate it. If anything, I hoped content would be added to debunk it. I am indifferent to keeping or deleting, especially since the aforementioned debunking never occurred. –Zfish118^⋉talk 21:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even from a FRINGE perspective it fails WP:NFRINGE and btw, SOAPBOX can be to promote or debunk - it doesn't matter which; the article as it stands only promotes this. Jytdog (talk) 03:28, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a fringe topic with only primary/non-independent sources, thus it fails notability. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:58, 21 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.