Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Schwarz


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 13:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Jack Schwarz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not seem notable, though there is an impressively long list of books listed. Article is highly laudatory and is loaded with promotion of fringe topics. Delta13C (talk) 19:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article started of badly with mass original research in 2007. The article is not notable and is like an advert. There are many promotional alternative medicine books that mention him that cannot be counted towards notability. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 21:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per OP. The tone of the article is also disgustingly promotional.142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Ugh the referencing is a beast. I'm trying to verify the first couple of sources to see if it's possible to improve the article. So far, the 2014 revised edition of the Zusne source does actually talk about Schwartz, not super in-depth, but more than a passing mention. And he's mentioned on 3 pages of the Ostrander 1974 source, but the snippets available on google don't show enough to be able to tell how in depth the coverage is. —PermStrump  ( talk )  21:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine -related deletion discussions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 22:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Have decided to relist per Permstrump's work coming after most of the comments, which had referred to a promotional tone that has been reduced with referencing. Needs consensus now more facts are available. KaisaL (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. No pass of WP:Prof sources inadequate for WP:Fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC).
 * Weak keep. I've added a few sources and verified some of the sources already listed, and I think he meets GNG. From what I've read so far, he doesn't sound as fringe-y as the current wording in the article would make it seem. —PermStrump  ( talk )  00:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is full of "miracle" type claims that are either uncited, or offline-cited so that they cannot be investigated or confirmed. This kind of stuff should absolutely not be allowed to stay here in Wikipedia's voice. Even the few bits of actual biography - he served in the Dutch Army, he was in the Dutch underground, etc. - are unsourced. --MelanieN (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. All sources appear to be WP:INUNIVERSE. Per WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV, we cannot cover this subject without in-depth mainstream sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. Despite the update and relist, I am still supporting a delete. Delta13C (talk) 04:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as examinations including WorldCat show nothing actually convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  07:38, 9 July 2016 (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.