Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beck Protocol

:{{la|Beck Protocol}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Beck_Protocol Stats])

:({{Find sources|Beck Protocol}})

Not being a member of a medical mafia, or a powerful person (see article talk page), I am bringing this to AfD for discussion. Is it notable? Maybe - or maybe not. Is it referenced in accordance with WP:RS? To my mind, definitely not. If it is notable, can it be referenced properly? Up to you. Peridon (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. I'm not quite sure what the reason for the nomination is here. Not having reliable sources is not a reason to nominate for deletion. There's plenty of articles about Bob Beck and his "protocol" around the internet, including official pages, fan pages, and stores. People buy this stuff, and the equipment that goes along with it. It'd be great if the article was expanded with some citations about the protocol's effectiveness (or lack thereof). Not sure how nominating for deletion is going to help get us there, though. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

::At least one article about Beck has been deleted, and his pages, his fans' pages, and stores are not reliable independent sources WP:RS. I'm not nominating purely because of the referencing. I want a consensus on notability. If you can reference it to fit WP:RS, please do so. Yes, if the article was expanded giving a picture of the claims, and a picture of the opposition to the 'protocol', with RS sourcing, I'd be quite happy. I brought this here after declining a speedy request that read 'just read it!' or words to that effect. Here, you're getting an open review and time to fix things. Peridon (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Delete As far as I can tell it fails Wikipedia:Fringe theories because there is no serious in-depth coverage in independent sources which are not involved in the promotion of the Beck Protocol. Coverage in scientific journals, newspapers, mainstream magazines, book that aren't promoting fringe science, etc, would be required. But right now, without independent secondary sources, it's impossible to write an article that gives a balanced view of the topic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• Delete Sources fail WP:RS. I have been unable to locate in depth reliable source coverage for the subject, As it stands the article fails WP:NRV. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.