Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural hygiene

Old discussion from VfD
Discussion concluded and article kept on June 1, 2004

Natural Hygiene
This article was listed for deletion, and a notice added to the page, but the mediawiki page wasn't started. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I listed it. This is an ad for quackery.   This showed up on Cleanup, and someone had tried to NPOV it, but I doubt there is anything worth saving in this malarkey.  Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the subject is quackery, but I think the editor did a pretty good job of NPOV'ing it. The subject should be mentioned in an encyclopedia. Thue 14:58, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP - This is a well known branch of alternative medicine popularlized by Paul Bragg. A bunch of trolls have tried to destroy this article.  But, the vandalism can be removed. The use of the word quackery is advocating a point of view. -- John Gohde 18:27, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * KEEP - I am the original author of this page. I thought this was an encyclopedia, without censorship.  Freedom of speech and freedom of health is a necessary thing if men are to aquire knowledge and pursue their own happiness.  Whether it is quackery or not, is an opinion.  I have had 32 years of experience with this.  For those that are opposed, what experience do you have with Natural Hygiene?  -- User:Paulbmann
 * Keep. It needs a lot of work to become truly NPOV (rather than just an argument between two sets of advocates) but is a perfectly valid article to be here.--ALargeElk 16:19, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I listed it on Cleanup, and I was the editor who went through it and tried to NPOV it - in its original condition it was essentially an advertisement for the system it describes, and I'm afraid that is POV.  Obviously the original author didn't like the results, and since I believe the system described is a particularly noxious kind of quackery, I may well have been too aggressive in my edits.  But the place for that debate is the article's talk page.  As far as VfD goes, whether we are for or against the system, it undoubtedly exists and has quite a significant following, so it is not just entitled to but needs an article.  What it can't have is an uncritical piece of advocacy.  seglea 17:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep it. Even if it's harmful stuff you don't agree with, it has a place in an encyclopedia so long as it is a theory of health that some people believe in, and provided the entry about it is NPOV - which it seems to be in process of becoming. Tonusperegrinus 18:04, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing this; when I first read it my impression was that it was full of self-promotion that no attempt at NPOVing could fix, and idiosyncratic nonsense along the lines of the "real magic" article that was deleted a few days ago. It seems that it is idiosyncratic nonsense with a following.  I am going to have to get out the book that has Martin Gardner's account of the death of Eugene V. Debs in it, it seems.  Smerdis of Tlön 20:25, 26 May 2004 (UTC)