Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Gary 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   delete. Wizardman 03:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

D. Gary Young

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a wildly biased advertisement for a 'natural oils' salesman. I'd clean it up by rewriting to neutral and removing unverifiable facts, but as I tried, I couldn't find a single reliable source of information on him. Outside of his own advertising, it appears that only Quackwatch and similar have written about him at all. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support A little bit of quick research:
 * Bernadean University is an established diploma mill
 * The Journal of Essential Oil Research does not appear to be a major peer reviewed journal, but someone with more experience in the area should check this. It looks to me like a journal intended for amateurs to publish in, but I'm not sure . (see below)
 * The Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association appears to be a journal run by a group of people similar to the ones running those fish oil trials in schools out in England.
 * Naturopathy sounds like a pseudoscience, which is the discipline the subject of the article got his degree in.

EagleFalconn (talk) 15:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * weak delete looks like an advert/c.v - it isn't properly referenced from reliable 3rd party sources - I can't find evidence of notability. so delete unless substantially rewritten and formatted to show said notability and reliable 3rd party references. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment there are three references which show him to be a quack, but the article is glowing. Something is wrong when the sources say one thing, and the article is 180 degrees in the other direction. 64.107.182.4 (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a fraud, if not speedy as spam. I'm much more inclined to believe Quackwatch than this drivel. DarkAudit (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Something is also suspicious when the author suddenly returns after a year's absence to post something so out-of-touch with the public record. Quackwatch has dozens of references to contradict virtually every point made in this article. DarkAudit (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete I've consulted Quackwatch, its a legitimate journal. However it limits its scope to the characterization and purification of essential oils, not uses. See, under 'Dubious Credentials.' For this reason, I say we push for speedy delete before the guy starts using his Wikipedia article as a sign of his credibility. EagleFalconn (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable Mayalld (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment we could always remove the non-verifiable claims (most of the article) and focus on what does have sources. It'd make the article more critical, but verifiable. I guess that that point it becomes a question of notability. If he's important enough to have a rather long entry on Quackwatch, he might be enough of a nutjob to merit an article. EagleFalconn (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment With the article and the Quackwatch report so wildly contradictory (and the "rebuttal" is an attack on the people at Quackwatch), it's better to nuke this and start over. I don't see any way to reconcile these two versions of the tale. DarkAudit (talk) 17:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment EagleFalconn, that's what I thought, too, and I was genuinely surprised that I couldn't find any mainstream coverage of the dude to support my original plan, which was to stubbify with the verifiable info on the guy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment After reading further the Notability criteria, I don't think this guy fits the bill. His work itself is not notable, though killing his kid at birth might be (see Quackwatch). Being a nutjob isn't notable either, though. I stand by my earlier delete vote.EagleFalconn (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Facetious comment I think it is possible to be notable for being a nutjob- see Time Cube- but I don't think Young is well known even by that qualifer. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:37, 20 July 2008 (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.