- 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. Consensus is that the subjects lacks the independent coverage required to support an article. Michig (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Qadir's test (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Self-proclaimed technique virtually unknown outside wikipedia, at least by its name. Materialscientist (talk) 09:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dear Sir: point well said. But, just because its an obscure tehnique does not mean its worthless. For example, since I dont know natural sciences, it got me to think in a way that I never did before. Could we please add something like "non-scientific obscure technique, not generally accepted by the scientific community" and abridge it a little and then allow it to stay, please? Its better to have it here than to refuse to hear another's opinon. Sincerely yours, Pvujin (talk) 09:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Has your technique been covered non-trivially by third-party reliable references? If not, there should not be an article on Wikipedia about it right now, but nothing prevents you from finding other venues to promote it. Perhaps then some reliable authorities will be interested in it, filling the prerequisite for a Wikipedia article. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – unsupported test for cancer. Perhaps hoax or quackery. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance to support notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nonnotable neologism – 0 Google scholar hits; 0 Google books hits. --Lambiam 19:55, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable. Not in widespread use. No secondary sources supporting use. JFW | T@lk 19:48, 27 April 2011 (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.