Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smoker's paradox
but maybe rename). It might be a dubious concept, with only scant mention in literature and maybe even only older lit if it's been discarded as a theory or no longer of interest, and the term itself might not be specifically used for some effects that are now discussed in the article. But either taken as the strict literature use, or as the broader sense, it's a well-defined topic that does have mention in the literature and seems quite different than the concepts covered in the main health-effects article. And it's a novel concept, that we can write about dispassionately. I fundamentally reject that merely having this as its own article is any sort of advocacy or appologetics;  is how we know. Therefore, I think it should be a self-contained sub-article as long as we have sources that support it. I agree we need ''reliable'' sources, but I don't think the past-decade limit of MEDRS is appropriate if the whole concept was only studied prior to that timeframe. It's an editorial decision whether "smoker's paradox" should be kept as the strict set of cases where this term is applied in the literature or as a wiki-editor/lay-language term for the broader scope. And if broader, should we instead use a different lay-language term to avoid mixing it up with the medical term
— User:DMacks, 21:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)