Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biochemic cell salts


 * 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   delete.  Sandstein  11:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Biochemic cell salts

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Obscure fringe topic, impossible to have neutral content as it's been ignored by the mainstream. Content of article openly admits that there's no WP:MEDRS. bobrayner (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

DeleteNot neutral, almost appears to be advertising.-- Deathlaser : Chat  15:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 Dilute Delete as having about as much notability as it contains useful trace elements. Quackery, and obscure quackery at that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete I couldn't find any reliable sources in googling, google scholar, google books etc. No sign of notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Further the one reliable source we have states: "No peer reviewed scientific clinical trials have been conducted on tissue salts, and they are less well known to the public than some other complementary therapies". This appears to be a positive confirmation of lack of notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep if for no other reason than that a decision to delete should be made by disinterested editors and not a lynch mob. Paul venter (talk) 09:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a reason, it's just a bad faith assertion thrown in. Can you provide policy based reasons for a keep? Can you find reliable sources to demonstrate notability? IRWolfie- (talk) 09:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Prejudice is a compelling reason. Biochemic cell salts or tissue salts are a fact of life, and used by an immense number of people, misguided or not - a whole industry is based on these chemicals. So notability is not a problem. If the article's critics have issues with the way that it is written, then they should find someone to rewrite it in a neutral way, but not howl for blood because they think it advocates a "fringe" belief. Paul venter (talk) 10:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rewrite it with what sources? There are not enough (are there any?!) reliable sources to make an article. What you regard as a fact of life does not establish notability, reliable sources do. See WP:N. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep per Paul venter, but that's just the start of it. First this article is divested of a number of references that this discussion should have been the forum to discuss. Now, instead, having removed all that was there in the last uncompromised version of the article, it can be claimed, and is being claimed, that no references exist. I have no illusions that people who are emotionally driven and vehemently antagonistic to anything alternative will find themselves unable to find any reliable sources on this topic. I think we need only click our way onto the German version of this article and take a glance at that article to establish that this topic is clearly notable, and that reliable references exist by all accounts. And of course, it's not just the German counterpart. In fact there are a total of five other Wikipedia's having this article. The article has been viciously defaced through tagbombing, a practice which clearly qualifies as disruptive editing. Here the strategy is blatantly obvious: rather than leaving the article in its original state, or attempting to build it up prior to this discussion, a dedicated effort has been meted out to make it look as awful as possible, THEN nominate for deletion. This process amounts to an abject testimony of the lack of community spirit and collaborative intent on a fanatical group of editors who's mission, rather than in a general way to improve the encyclopedia, can be likened to a witch-hunt—an inquisition. __meco (talk) 13:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at the sources which were removed. None of them are reliable. All of the sources were self published. Perhaps you should step down from the WP:SOAPBOX and address that instead. There is no reliable sources on this topic. That other *pedias have the article does not establish notability. Reliable sources establish notability. Where are the reliable sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you want the reliable sources to confirm? That biochemic cell salts exist or that they are effective as remedies? That cell salts exist and support a global industry is undeniable and the title of this article sets out from that point. Whether they are effective in what they claim is irrelevant, unless the content of the article echoes the claim, and only then is it necessary to find reliable references. It is possible to write the article from a neutral point of view without any waving of banners from the pro- or anti-alternative medicine factions. So you also need to get off your soapbox and try to be more Wikipedian in your approach. Paul venter (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I want significant coverage in reliable sources to confirm it is notable (I already stated this in my above comment). This is an AfD. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What you want is neither here nor there - what is important is what WP wants. Tissue salts are simply another material like Epsom salts, gold, granite or jelly babies. Wanting to establish any material as notable denotes very fuzzy thinking bordering on the ridiculous - this is not a minor celebrity we are considering. Paul venter (talk) 13:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I seriously suggest you read the notability guidelines before commenting further: WP:N. IRWolfie- (talk) 14:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And I would seriously suggest that this "debate" could benefit from fewer drum-thumping wikilawyers and more sensible editors. Paul venter (talk) 14:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also note that restoring unsourced content and re-adding self published sources does not demonstrate notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Note that Meco was canvassed to come here User_talk:Meco by Paul venter. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I pondered this myself and considered making a remark about it. I however checked the user's contribution log to see if more users had been notified similarly. They hadn't. I therefore decided that Paul venter for some reason had considered myself to be someone who would particularly want to be notified about this discussion, and I didn't mention it here. I think it as appropriate that you find reason to make a note of it though. __meco (talk) 10:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Delete - No sources provided, except for one, establishing the non-notability of the subject ("and they are less well known to the public than some other complementary therapies.")

The See-also section looks pretty silly. We could just as well continue:
 * ==See also==
 * Trace mineral (Note: this product does not contain any)
 * Tiger penis (Note: this product does not contain any)
 * Diamond dust (Note: this product does not contain any)
 * Alkaloids (Note: this product does not contain any)

- DVdm (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * A reluctant delete Well, they are mentioned in something that looks vaguely like scientific literature if you squint a bit. Books with such names as "How to Give an Astrological Health Reading", "Radiant Healing", "The Healing Echo: Discovering Homeopathic Cell Salt Remedies", "How to improve your health: the wholistic [sic] approach" and my favourite, "Stepping into Spiritual Oneness: Spiritual Rememberings of the Soul Through Life Exerience" by, well, let's use the name she uses on the book, Dr. Patti " D i a m o n d l a d y " Diamond, DD. I did worry that I would not be able to point you to the page where she talks about biochemic cell salts as "the Spiritual Treasure Chest is free from being page numbered". Strangely, her publisher seems to have not gotten the message from the spirits and has put page numbers in there, and so it is on page 361. According to this highly reliable source, Cell Salts "are a great way to begin the infinite circle of water and salt being as One", and they help "bring body cells to a state of natural balance" and "bring about alkalinity and alignment". My spiritual perceptions are duly shifted, but sadly, I have to decide based on those boring old unenlightened rules that govern Wikipedia, namely WP:RS, WP:GNG and WP:FRINGE, so although it would be wonderful to keep this article around for comedy value, I can't see how we can source it to anything by people other than, well, Dr.  D i a m o n d l a d y . —Tom Morris (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there we are - the title of the article is being ignored while the association with fringe lunatics is being milked for all its worth. Perhaps all articles dealing with crystals should be expunged because of the healing powers they are supposed to have - and is there room for flat-earthers, flying saucers and feng shui. I must point out again, writing an objective article about something does not mean one supports the idea. Paul venter (talk) 14:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Show that there are independent, reliable sources on the topic that come from non-fringe non-lunatics and I'll happily change my mind. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the German wikipedia article gives two references to attacks on the method written by Edzard Ernst. Does that count? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you a german speaker? If so, can you look at the particular references? From the title (and from google translate) it appears they may not specifically address the salts or may only provide a minor mention. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article by Edzard Ernst in Stern has these salts ("Schüßler-Salze" in German) as its subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per Tom. The topic does not pass the GNG -- Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  15:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Sorry, Paul, I know you put a lot of work into this but we can't have a medical topic for which no WP:MEDRS compliant sources exist. All WP policy and nuance aside, doing so would be unethical.   S Æ don talk 21:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a non-notable subject. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not likely that NPOV sources will ever be available, risk of recreation neverteless. So, pun intended, Delete and SALT. - ¡Ouch! (hurt me / more pain) 10:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC) With no prejudice against unsalting, should a neutral RS be demonstrated.
 * Delete: Like IRWolfie, I could only find a single RS that basically said the product was non-notable BS. Nothing at all of encyclopedic value here, and highly doubt that there ever will be. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:05, 30 April 2012 (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.