Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackwatch
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 
— User:MastCell, 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:WEB||WP:WEB (Wikipedia:Notability)