Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert O. Young

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.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) —Theopolisme 00:57, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Robert O. Young (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Request at OTRS 2012110110007313 - reason "It is not correct other than the birthday"  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It seems to have had possible WP:BLP problems in the past but this revision that's been nominated is better (it had basically a big table debunking his quackery, which may or may not have been correct but in any case was inappropriate for Wikipedia). The section Robert O. Young#Legal issues appears to check out in the sources given. Morwen - Talk 20:07, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong speedy keep. I can speculate that the person who sent the message to OTRS is likely the same anon who was blocked for making legal threats in the past, but that's irrelevant. The article undergoes periods (such as in the last few months) where someone comes along and wants to add negative information or original research, and other periods where someone comes along to white-wash the article. The claim "It is not correct other than the birthday" is a blatantly false assertion. The sources cited have been deemed reliable either in the talk page discussion or at WP:RSN. It is interesting that someone chooses not to challenge whatever may be "not correct" on the talk page and instead complains to OTRS. That smacks of bad faith, and isn't supposed to be how Wikipedia works. The nomination is so obviously misplaced that this discussion should be closed immediately, and were it not for my WP:INVOLVEment, I would do it myself. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right. I have told the requester that I have started the deletion process for them (as we suggest to do, when they are not sure how to do it correctly), and told them that they should come to this page and make their case clear. Thus I would ask we leave it at least a day or so for the person to do so. If they then fail to post anything, you may draw your own conclusions.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Regardless of any past issues or OTRS issues, the subject does not appear to meet Wikipedia notability criteria. I could not find significant coverage by Reliable Sources at Google News Archive. [1] Only 2 Reliable Sources are cited in the article; the Arizona Tribune citation is a dead link, and the San Diego Union-Tribune item is an op-ed type piece. --MelanieN (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Um... "reliable sources" don't mean just news sources. Criticisms by physicians are also considered reliable, and these are cited in the article. Furthermore, the fact that this guy has appeared on notable mainstream TV shows (like Oprah for example) is sufficient to meet the WP:SIGCOV notability criteria. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:45, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As disclosure: I have contributed to this article, but ALL of my contributions (many general improvements {10 edits over 2+ weeks}, including 3 repaired dead links and a removed dead wikilink; parallel citations across two versions of Young's core book; improved grammar, punctuation, precision and accuracy; and lastly and most importantly, a large table comparing and contrasting Young's "pH" with actual "pH", plus many self-contradictions from within Young's work—all with citations to the relevant scientific consensus positions) have ALL been deleted as "non [sic] encyclopedic crap", and again as "non-encyclopedic [sic] crap, 'crap' "—punctuated by blocking me (and my whole library, despite a hatnote) for "edit warring". Perhaps most importantly in the Wikipedia scheme of “Notability”: WP:NTEMP. To establish notability: 1)[[2]] is apparently WP:RS and Young is the subject (now ref#24); 2) on Young's Revision History page at 19:52, 7 September 2012,‎ Amatulic asserts: "prior talk page discussion agreed that Gorski is a reliable source for this account" [[3]] (now ref #26; it's an article about Young and one of his now-dead adherents); 3) [[4]] has a short article on Young, (now ref #19); 4) [[5]] (from Google News—isn't cited yet, but is also an article about Young and one of his now-dead adherents). Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria states that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". As to the deadness of the link to "the Arizona Tribune citation", I presume that the Internet Archive could be used to repair it. I would have done so now, but it has been made very obvious to me that my help will be neither welcomed nor even tolerated there; at least thus far (I have not yet had time to address these issues precisely and more specifically with those responsible). Rudeness, repeated ongoing violation of WP:CIV, deletion of my efforts (in favor of non-function), the fact that the person most-helpful to me here is apparently someone in disfavor with the Wikipedian community (I initially thought that he'd done the redacting, but it now seems that he was redacted Talk:Robert_O._Young#Dutch_source_about_Young), no answers to multiply-repeated sincere requests for specifics—and all of the abuse has come from those entrusted with privileges here—is this welcome typical of that extended to all newbies? Actions and behavior speak louder than "guidelines" and "policies" that everyone with "power" here ignores. 67.91.184.187 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie? According to your contributions list, you have been here since 2007 (OK, it's an IP, so maybe that wasn't you). But you have been editing this article at least since September. In that time you've been blocked three times, by three different administrators. You seem to want to keep this article so it can serve as a soapbox for your rebuttals of his work. That's not a reason to keep the article. --MelanieN (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems apparent that the anon wants to use the article as a soapbox, but that's irrelevant to this discussion. Buried in the screed above, the anon makes a valid point about Young's notability, with sufficient sources given to establish coverage. Let's not dismiss someone's argument just because it lacks focus. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per multiple comments by Amatulic. Why this was relisted is beyond me. I was going to echo the speedy keep when it was first listed, but thought it would be redundant. --Ronz (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Amatulic is basically correct. I do disagree that appearing on a major TV show is necessarily notability--what it all too often is is PR. But there is enough else to keep the article. DGG ( talk ) 21:26, 16 November 2012 (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.