Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quackademic medicine
I get the feeling that most () are agreed that a separate article isn't warranted simply because of lack of notability and neologism concerns. There is also some recognition that ''brief'' mention in the quackery article would be acceptable. I agree with both POV
— User:BullRangifer, 05:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SNOW (Wikipedia:Snowball clause)