Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hydrogen peroxide therapy

I don't know the name for what it is, but is is definitely NOT an encyclopedia article. Look for yourself. Mikkalai 19:26, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * It belongs on the home shopping network. Delete &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  19:37, Sep 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: It's nonsense that will kill people. Geogre 20:00, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * So will guns, smoking, and autoerotic asphyxiation. Bad argument. -- Netoholic @ 05:09, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Speed deleted as patent nonsense. It contained this statement: Cancer (which doesn't like oxygen), emphysema, AIDS, and many other diseases can be treated effectively. See also:, . The quackery angle is also addressed in the article hydrogen peroxide. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:14, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * But it really works! The cancer and AIDS can't kill you if you're already dead from hemolysis. Darksun 21:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Retain as a redirect to hydrogen peroxide, which already has information about this "therapy", to discourage article re-creation. -- Netoholic @ 00:29, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Did you actually recreate a speedy deleted article to make a redirect? Geogre 01:15, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You've done some provocative things, but this one takes the cake! Geogre 01:30, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * You're right, I have just intiated a vote for undeletion. This did not qualify for speedy deletion. -- Netoholic @ 01:47, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Did it win? Did it win before you recreated it to stamp your foot? Geogre 02:36, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused here. Netoholic recreated hydrogen peroxide therapy solely as a redirect -- he didn't restore the page history. Making the redirect seems harmless. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:57, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * That's right: You speedy deleted this article as patent nonsense. Netoholic created a new Hydrogen peroxide therapy so that he could make it into a redirect.  The issue, to me, is that this is a complete subversion of the VfD process and a thumb in the eye of the community.  No one has a chance to vote to keep it without going to the deletion log.  It is also a de facto undeletion without process. It is, in short, such a flagrant disregard for the community practice of VfD as to be insufferable to me. Geogre 04:13, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not a sysop, so I did the best I could. It was not a subversion (else why would I point it out myself?). I knew that if I created the redirect, the article history could be brought back later. I don't have access to the deleted content, so I couldn't re-create the wording.  -- Netoholic @ 05:05, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * And what you did might well have been the final dispensation. At that point, someone who did have access to the deleted content could have done it.  However, you forced the issue by deciding on your own that you were going to end the VfD debate with a "remedy": All along, and you can scroll way up before the removal of 3 nominations I made, that has been my problem with your actions.  Let the rest of the community speak!  I do not trust myself, you, or anyone to make a final dispensationary move, and that's why I trust, instead, everyone to make the move.  Unilateralism bugs me no end.  None of us are smart enough or virtuous enough to act alone. Geogre 14:51, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with Netoholic's behavior, but keep redirect.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 02:16, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect but this was not a speedy candidate. Tinfoil-hat quackery is not in the definition of patent nonsense.  Rossami 04:55, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as redirect (I would have voted merge & redirect if it hadn't been deleted). Much as many of Netoholic's actions have irked me, imho the incorrect behaviour in this affair was the speedy deletion of the article, I do not believe it qualified as patent nonsense - I would describe it as "partisan screed, or opinion masquerading as fact", which is explicitly described as not patent nonsense. &mdash;Stormie 04:40, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)