Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Malcolm Kendrick

This page should NOT be deleted. Dr. Kendrick provides unique content about an important topic, and while some disagree with his positions, he provides well-founded, scientifically thoughtful information on this topic. His specific contributions are followed by many, many readers. There is no meaningful reason to hide his content within another heading; this proposal smacks of censorship.

This page should NOT be deleted.

Dr. Kendrick, a respected doctor, thinker and writer, has much to contribute to the current thinking around the causes of cardiovascular disease. Deleting this page simply because one person (of unknown motivation) requests it seems to be a very short-sighted and unprofessional means of operation.Louis.Dia (talk) 21:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Dr Kendrick is not a fringe figure but is in the forefront of the necessary revision of the current orthodoxy as to the cause of heart disease. His viewpoint is becoming more mainstream as evidence emerges that avoiding fat is not the way to avoid heart disease. I don’t know who the person is who has requested deletion but they seem to very prolific with edits and I for one will cease to support Wikipedia financially if opinions contrary to current orthodoxies in science are removed. The whole basis of the scientific method is to move forward by erecting a new hypothesis and showing that the old is incorrect. Dr Kendrick May be incorrect or correct in his viewpoint but he is honestly and openly sharing his reasoning unlike the anonymous and in my opinion dangerous person who has sought his deletion. In my opinion his edits need to be rigorously checked after this blatant attempt to shutdown someone who honestly and sincerely disagrees with the current - but weakening - concensus. GS120748 (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Reasons why this article should NOT be deleted

Wikipedia's Deletion Policy contains a non-exclusive list of 14 reasons why an article might be considered for deletion.

The present short article on Dr Kendrick does not appear to give rise for concern on any of the 14 grounds.

His views may be at odds with current NHS advice to GPs on the prescription of Statins and the significance of Cholesterol on the risks of CHD and stroke, but they have been developed over a long period of medical practice and are clearly set out in his books.

Simply holding views that are not those of the medical "establishment" is not a ground for deletion of the article. Wikipedia is one of the bastions of free speech and holding contrarian views should be encouraged, not subjected to censorship.

Paul W Ellis (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Dr Kendrick presents a modern, considered, yet to be supported by research; point of view on health. Having worked a life time in community, aged and most recently emergency health care, I enjoy reading the new perspectives that Dr Kendrick brings to the table. Removing such perspectives would be a detriment to the promotion of accessible, collaborative and current health care information; that increasingly people search for on the web today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miacol43 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• KEEP Who is this person "Skeptic from Britain"? We can see his/her/its fixation in the history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Skeptic_from_Britain

  - Kendrick challenges current scientific dogma, and his books are bristling with data to support his arguments.

So who is "Skeptic from Britain"? Where are his/her/its books and scientific arguments?

The debate on the relevance of cholesterol in coronary vascular disease will continue as indeed it must

- whatever about the axes that anonymous incognitos wish to grind...

Revise to include more detail, rather than deleting

In addition to his extensive work on heart disease, stroke and other cardiovascular complaints, Dr Kendrick has made valuable contributions to the care of the elderly, especially those confined to nursing homes.

Fuller details of his "deprescribing" policy would help round out this portrait of an outstanding medical practitioner.

Anarchie76 (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2018 (UTC)