Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oil cleansing method


 * 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   no consensus. L Faraone  07:31, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Oil cleansing method

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article deserves to be deleted. What few sources people have tried to add have been to blogs and other unreliable sources and the article does not satisfy notability criteria. Furthermore, the subject matter is not verifiable and Wikipedia is not a how-to. Exhibit:

1. Google news, which should be the easiest place to find reliable information on this process has nothing other than an advertisement and two blogs.

2. What few Google scholar results there are do not come from scientific journals; in fact two of them are even dead.

3. I tried searching on Pubmed using a variety of search terms, but there appears to be little research in the way of topical application of oil for the purpose of cleansing skin.


 * "Oil cleansing"
 * Oil + cleansing + facial + skin
 * Oil + cleansing + skin
 * oil + topical + skin

4. This article may be of more detriment than assistance to readers because several Google books sources mention Wikipedia is their primary source of information. Wikipedia should serve to educate and inform the public based on scientific results, not perpetuate homeopathic and holistic medicine practices by serving as a how-to guide.

I am not the first user to air grievances over this article. User:Whig attempted a proposed deletion in March 2009 using the argument that Wikipedia is not a how-to, with admin Graeme Bartlett (author of the article) immediately deleting the request. User:Quibik added and  in October 2011, which have not since been acted on. Comments on the history page indicate that many Wikipedia users are wary of this article:

"but is there truth to any of this?"

"The previous theory behind the method didn't make much sense so I elaborated on the theory."

Graemes responded to the first proposed deletion by saying "I will make it less a how to, but topic itself is notable." Clearly this user believes they own the article and has taken few steps to improve it. In fact, in one edit, (s)he notes that "There are plenty of references, but mostly commercial or blogs so not original, if any want to dispute, pleaes discuss on talk page." I wonder if (s)he will change his/her mind with all this evidence to the contrary? - Sweet Nightmares  16:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This topic is not an academic one, nor a news worthy event, instead it is a beauty treatment. So that is why you don't see it in medical research. The point about prod is that it is not to be used more than once on an article.  That is why the recent prods were removed by me. I did change it to not be a how-to article.  It was an WP:AFC contribution originally. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There has been citation needed abuse happening here. But there have been references provided removed by the nominator to make this look less notable.  However I have now added 3 book references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not abuse; the sources came from blogs, self-published sources, and other unverified sources. - Sweet Nightmares  20:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * What is abuse is tagging every statement with a cn tag. I know that you are not the original tagger.  There are quite a few other books with significant coverage of the topic, but they are not included as I cannot verify their content.  Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. (Sorry if this is inappropriate; there is no beauty Wikiproject!) -  Sweet Nightmares  04:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -  Sweet Nightmares  04:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

 
 * The overall situation is that there are multiple book references that in themselves show notability for this topic. There are also many blog references that confirm the information contained in the article.  There is no actual reason to believe that the blogs are unreliable, and they are not needed to show notability. Whether the method works or not is irrelevant to whether there should be an article. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Soft Keep Truth and Notability aren't the same thing. And this is the sort of topic where I find google blog hits indicative of notability. Neonchameleon (talk) 02:34, 14 December 2013 (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.