Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (naturopath)


 * 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: The content is substantially different from that reviewed by the previous AfD, containing more content and numerous citations, so I don't believe arguments to delete based on speedy deletion criterion G4 carry much weight. Apart from that we have a discussion mainly split roughly evenly between simple "is notable" and "is not notable" assertions. No consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 16:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Robert Young (naturopath)
Speedy delete due to reposted content(CSD G4). Dr. Robert Young already failed Afd: Articles for deletion/Dr. Robert Young. The article was recreated by someone else as Dr. Robert Young, then moved to Robert Young (naturopath) by me before I noticed the repost. (Closing admin: please watch for socks.) Medtopic 21:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep seems like a noteworthy fraud. Nickieee 22:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as repost if content is substantially the same, just Delete otherwise. Non-notable quack as per previous AfD. Fan-1967 23:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The content is very different indeed. The previous article presented Young's theories as established fact, and contained none of the content in this article pertaining to fraud.  Uncle G 15:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The previous article went through a lot of changes. Early versions were attack pages. Later ones were favorable to him. Fan-1967 01:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Recently the article has included a number of important references to fraudulent activities people should be able to access. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.16.39 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment. As with the previous version, the article changes between promotion for this person and attacks against him. Either way, it should not be kept. Fan-1967 13:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep —  As someone who has been in the nutrition industry for over 10 years, although his theories are complete quackery, unfortunately he is definitely notable. Google search for "Robert Young" pH yeilds 64,100 results - Gl e n 14:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Including Dr. Robert Young geologist, S. Robert Young, Obstetrician, Dr. Robert Young, plastic surgeon, Robert Young, deceased actor, etc. The google test doesn't work so well with common names. -- Avi 22:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep —  I agree to keep based on the above - he is a notable figure in the natural health arena and whether you agree with his ideas or not - other people will want to know about him. I thought the idea of Wikipedia was to provide neutral information - not add/delete articles based upon whether you believe someone or something.  If you don't agree with his theories then make sure the article is balanced - don't just delete it. Therefore, if you were that worried about his research being fact or not, surely you would just have to caveat your paragraph with 'It has been suggested that some of his theories are not scientifically sound, however, he states that....etc' - I can't help but feel that personal viewpoints and perspectives take precidence over the overall good that Wikipedia tries to provide sometimes. 61.88.251.46 9:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No one has said to keep or delete the article based upon whether or not they agree with his theories or POV. -Medtopic 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I did describe him as a "non-notable quack", but my deletion vote was based on the non-notable part, not the quackhood (quackness?). Fan-1967 01:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Only purpose seems to be to disparage or attack the subject. Wikipedia is not a repository for every bit of dirt or scandal that can be dredged up. :) Dlohcierekim 00:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep: useful information not easily found elsewhere and appears to have factual basis —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Misgro (talk • contribs) 04:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC).


 * Keep I looked under his name. He was strongly recommended by Anthony Robbins.  That makes him notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.34.115.78  (talk • contribs) 18:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete Maybe not a speedy, but we do not need to keep a record of every quack, dick, and harry either. Avi 22:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - He is notable.Bakaman Bakatalk 02:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete utterly non-notable -- Samir  धर्म 05:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, simply nn. --Ter e nce Ong (Chat 10:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as repost. Non-notable the first time around, "plus ça change..." Ifnord 01:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. *drew 12:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Nickieee.  Orsini 04:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Glen, notable within the nutrition industry for over a decade. RFerreira 21:16, 21 August 2006 (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.