The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
Delete. The lede is clearly an advertisement. The article body entirely fails to demonstrate that 'avatar medicine' is anything more than a neologism - a new phrase for existing methodology (the lede more or less asserts this anyway: "There has been a long history of using avatar medicine to help diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and cancer"). A fancy phrase or two doesn't justify another article on subjects already covered elsewhere without the puffery.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
13:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Draftify. Even assuming, generously, that this is a notable subject, the article is in no shape for mainspace. It's suffering, among other issues, from a lack of citations that actually mention the topic itself. In general, I favor a strong presumption toward deletion for articles that have been repeatedly declined at AfD and then moved to mainspace without substantively addressing the review comments.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
13:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep under a new name, if that's allowed as an option! I recognise that this article is talking about a real topic, but it's not well written. Some of this relates to
personalised medicine. Most of it would be better under a name like
avatar models. Do a Google Scholar search on "avatar models" and you can see enough for an article, I believe. But "avatar medicine" does not appear to be a sufficiently established name.
Bondegezou (
talk)
13:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. The phrase "avatar medicine" does not appear in PubMed. It does not appear in Google Scholar except in one instance where it coincidentally shows up as a variable name.
Jaredroach (
talk)
17:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as per previous editors who have found that the topic is not clearly defined. This article reads like an advertisement for something. It isn't for a company or a quack.
Pseudoscience is characterized by promotional claims, so this reads like pseudoscientific medicine.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
00:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.
Delete. The lede is clearly an advertisement. The article body entirely fails to demonstrate that 'avatar medicine' is anything more than a neologism - a new phrase for existing methodology (the lede more or less asserts this anyway: "There has been a long history of using avatar medicine to help diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's disease, and cancer"). A fancy phrase or two doesn't justify another article on subjects already covered elsewhere without the puffery.
AndyTheGrump (
talk)
13:17, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Draftify. Even assuming, generously, that this is a notable subject, the article is in no shape for mainspace. It's suffering, among other issues, from a lack of citations that actually mention the topic itself. In general, I favor a strong presumption toward deletion for articles that have been repeatedly declined at AfD and then moved to mainspace without substantively addressing the review comments.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs)
13:22, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Weak keep under a new name, if that's allowed as an option! I recognise that this article is talking about a real topic, but it's not well written. Some of this relates to
personalised medicine. Most of it would be better under a name like
avatar models. Do a Google Scholar search on "avatar models" and you can see enough for an article, I believe. But "avatar medicine" does not appear to be a sufficiently established name.
Bondegezou (
talk)
13:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. The phrase "avatar medicine" does not appear in PubMed. It does not appear in Google Scholar except in one instance where it coincidentally shows up as a variable name.
Jaredroach (
talk)
17:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete as per previous editors who have found that the topic is not clearly defined. This article reads like an advertisement for something. It isn't for a company or a quack.
Pseudoscience is characterized by promotional claims, so this reads like pseudoscientific medicine.
Robert McClenon (
talk)
00:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)reply
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.