Deletion of Universal Medicine

Comment: per significant coverage in numerous |reliable sources. Subject of the article meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: The subject is unquestionably notable. The sourcing is solid. Unfortunately in real life sometimes there just aren't two equal sides to a controversial subject. If the article seems to have a critical tone, it's because pretty much all of the information coming from RS sources paints this group as a fringe cult. That said, some of the people who have been editing the article do appear to have their own  that is decidedly hostile to the subject. But again, the sources say what they say. And that's what we go with. Lastly there is no doubt at all that this AfD is a frivolous nomination by adherents of UM who have an established track record of trying to suppress any negative coverage or discussion of the organization. I regard this AfD as a fairly naked attempt at censorship
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:AGENDA)

Comment: with reservations. The number of single-purpose accounts operating on this article (on both sides) is concerning (by my count, at least five of the above participants have edited no other mainspace article), and there are a few issues with , but it does appear to meet GNG. Whatever happens it needs close watching
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)