Deletion of Quackwatch

Comment: Well-known site; well-referenced article that easily meets .  Really dubious nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I think if this AFD has shown us one thing is that many people feel that the existing article is a lopsided one written more as a promotional piece rather than a neutral article. There is a group of editors hellbent on excluding/removing any and all criticism (of which Quackwatch garners quite a bit). The sort of |article ownership is frowned on here at Wikipedia. Bringing this to light to other Wikipedians certainly was not a waste of time. No one is obligated to comment here, so if you feel it is a waste of your time, then do what you like. I haven't found this process to be disruptive whatsoever, but helpful. I encourage more neutral editors to come to the article and help turn it from a PR piece to an encyclopdic article. Bottomline, Quackwatch is a critical site and thus one can expect it receives a lot of critical backlash. Right now, this side of the Quackwatch story is hardly told. And - for anyone following the current discussion on Talk:Quackwatch - of the remaining two minor pieces of criticism, the "pro-Quackwatch" editors (as Fyslee calls them) are trying to remove even one of those. There is systematic whitewash at play here and again I encourage some article supervision by some more neutral and expert Wikipedians. Thanks. In conclusion, I do think that Quackwatch passes the notability threshold and should be kept as an article; it is just that the current article is far too promotional. The biased POV at play here is exemplified above by Fyslee, where he aligns Quackwatch with "the scientific majority" and thus writes off all of its detractors as minorities which need not be mentioned in the article, but rather swept under the rug with edit warring and ludicrous policy arguments which at the root are tantamount to  at best. I certainly feel that this AfD is over and can be closed expeditiously. I hope what it has shed light on though will stay with us and that we have a better, more complete, article to look forward to in the future
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: and '''close''' per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: The article as is has been mostly written and |protected by Quackwatch adherrents and supporters (some have even worked for Quackwatch directly). This is why the current version of this article reads like a PR marketing brochure. Even just today as the article became unprotected, one of Quackwatch's chief adherrents effectively added some more "whitewash" to the already fluffy fluff piece. And though Quackwatch is most notable for the controversy surrounding its critics, I have personally watched helplessly as these adherrents have edit warred the criticism section down to just a few short sentences (whereas, it was once rich with criticisms from a whole host of notable sources, as MastCell alludes to above). I've been involved with this article for quite some time and it seems that my mere presence there stirs up animosity from the adherrents. That being said, when this article is deleted and/or rewritten, I would agree to step aside and let fresh eyes construct the new NPOV article if all of the adherents would agree to do the same. Sound fair
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Ownership of content (WP:OWN)

Comment: the article is a POV mess and has a bit too much reliance on , but at the core it meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:SELFPUB||WP:WEB)

Comment: well referenced article, meets 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I don't see any evidence of non-trivial coverage in third-party sources per . The vast majority of the sources are pages at Quackwatch's website, which also fails to satisfy  ("the article is not based primarily on self-published sources"). The exceptions are generally news articles including very brief mention of the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:SELFPUB)

Comment: Yes, the subject is a divisive one and the quality of the article is suboptimal. But the topic is undoubtedly |notable - see the various secondary sources provided. The site has been reviewed by ''The Consultant Pharmacist'', ''JAMA'', ''US News and World Report'', ''Forbes'' - and has been mentioned in a more minor context in many other sources (again detailed in the article). It's also been the topic of at least some notable criticism. While I would almost rather the article go away simply because of the nastiness that surrounds it on Wikipedia, I don't think there's any stretch of the imagination by which this subject fails 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:WEB)

Comment: The subject is |notable hence the various sources and references provided in the article. The argument(s) to delete appear confused and none involve Wikipedia policy
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)