Deletion of Criticisms of medicine (2nd nomination)

Comment: and salt the tittle, because no encyclopedic neutral article can exists there. I painstakingly surveyed all accessible so-called references, they revealed one thing: this article s epitome of  and concoction to paint picture that never was and push fringe POV masquerading as an encyclopedic article. I am also pertubed by the  badgering by account solely created to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NightHeron&oldid=842330124 mask identity and fight for keeping this mess in the name of article.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Diff/843049301 Forum shopping ''after'' DRV and their apparent https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:NightHeron/sandbox&oldid=838349902 attempt to recreate the article after this is eventually deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTHESIS)

Comment: the history of medicine is full of techniques that were once considered ''"cutting edge"'' and ''"scientific"'', that are now considered nonsense - phlebotomy, bleeding to drain bad humours, for instance.  On the other hand, there are techniques now used that seemed like quack techniques, that are now universally accepted.  Semmelweis, the 19th century obstetrician who first argued doctors should wash their hands prior to delivering babies was sent to an insane asylum.  No offense but it is only recentism that makes fans of scientific medicine see it as above criticism.  Will kooks try to stuff Criticisms of medicine with kooky nonsense?   Maybe.  But that is true of articles on any notable topic.  And the remedy for that is for non-kooks to put the article on their watchlist, and insist that new material complies with , ,  and .  If we think new material ''seems'' kooky, but our check shows us it complies with VER, RS, NPOV and NOR, it wasn't kooky after all, it was only our unexamined biases that made us think it was kooky
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:VER||WP:RS||WP:NPOV||WP:NOR)

Comment: Whether process had been abused or not, whether there are any disputes or not, this topic can never end, edit conflicts that have the potential to reach a level of full protection, there can simply be no one agreeing on this issue. This is a |TNT and |IAR delete. To the original editor, this is a topic that is so controversial that it cannot be easily dealt with, so I recommend taking on other less controversial pages in the future, at least a topic such as Criticism of Alternative Medicine may well be better or not
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT||WP:IAR)

Comment: the content to more relevant articles, and – eventually, when all of the usable content has been correctly placed in other articles – '''redirect''' this name to Medicine, which probably will end up with a ==Criticism== section as a result.  You can see one example of a very simple split https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticisms_of_medicine&diff=843238520&oldid=843059694 in this diff, which shows me moving a sourced sentence to an article that did not previously contain such a concise explanation of how cultural expectations affected the opioid epidemic.  This is not a difficult kind of editing task, and it s verifiable content
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Editing policy (WP:PRESERVE)

Comment: I have read the https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Criticisms_of_medicine&oldid=842945391 so-called "good" version, and I'm actually sympathetic to ''some'' extent towards the notion of having an article like this. My liberal bleeding heart, always eager for a new excuse to ex-sanguinate, is moved by the assertions in the article that modern healthcare systems underserve women and minorities. But — ''big'' but — that is not a criticism of medicine. That's a criticism of healthcare. To take those arguments and lump them into an article with some alternative medicine woo-woo is 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Oh, what a mess. Yet, that's pretty much a textbook example of . Even if each separate axis of criticism was supported by rock-solid RS (which is not really the case at the moment but it is within the realm of possibilities), what would be needed is sources (e.g. sociology studies; emphasis on plural) lumping all those separate criticisms together. A quick GScholar search did not turn up anything remotely resembling that, though I will admit that's not my domain and I might have overlooked something obvious. Also, the first AfD's closure might have been invalid, but plainly on procedural/closure rationale grounds, and it certainly is no obstacle to quick renomination
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: as a . Some of the content is criticism of the US healthcare system (which already has its own Health care in the United States|article and plenty of space for criticism), some is criticism of frauds (which exist in all fields, not just medicine - and a relevant article Quackery|also already exists), some is criticism of historical behaviours which can hardly be attributed to the field of medicine alone, and the article overall is a haphazard collation of those, and it constitutes POV-pushing  (since it is criticism taken out of context, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of the Petroleum Industry|this older AfD - sure, there's criticism, but the article in this form is unacceptable ). Relevant content can thus be split to relevant articles (if it isn't already there), and |the rest can go where it Garbage|rightfully belongs (i.e. the trash can, if you were not sure). Special:Contributions/198.84.253.202|198.84.253.202
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:SYNTH||WP:CHERRYPICKING||WP:BOLLOCKS)

Comment: The article is an essay with opinions gathered by an editor () to show one side of a story (). Anything as complex as medicine is going to have a lot of problems (and misguided accusations of problems), and listing them should be done on a blog
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH||WP:POVFORK)

Comment: The topic is framed as an attack page in an inherently biased way and so is contrary to |core policy
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV)