Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Anti-Vaccination League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was keep. Johnleemk | Talk 12:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Anti-Vaccination League

This isn't really an article, and doesn't have any useful information to be organized CDN99 15:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Googling yields 267 hits; it's a defunct group --CDN99 13:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and Expand to contain some slightly more useful information Jcuk 19:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please keep; it's an important lesson to remember that such a group existed and had support (anon)
  • Keep Important historical organisation, and seeing as all vaccination pages are biased and vaccination criticism gets deleted off Wiki eg Lily Loat, --attempts Viera Scheibner, Vaccination critics, there needs to be a source of present day anti-vaccination people, seeing as Vaccination critics looks to be going. And since my research is vaccination I would appreciate it if other editors didn't try to delete my work. john 17:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't a present-day organization. John's "research" is described here, as well as his numerous articles created to support his criticism of vaccines. --CDN99 18:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I have no sympathy for the anti-vax position, but this contains valuable information for those of us who attempt to counteract the damaging influence of anti-vax fanatics like John (whaleto).
History needs to be preserved. Unless we understand our history, we will be doomed to repeat it. Even the rantings of misinformed anti-vaxers should sometimes be preserved. They just need to be labeled for what they are: rants, misinformation, dangerous, prejudiced, one-sided, etc.
Wikipedia needs to be more than an ordinary encyclopedia, which includes the concept of being a relatively unlimited source of information. Bytes fill less than paper.....;.) -- Fyslee 21:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Try and refrain from personal abuse, ad hominem abusive is an admission that we have no argument. When you have spent 12 years looking into vaccination, like I have, you may realise you are the one who is misinformed. "When we criticise others, we are in fact giving a description of ourselves"--is a saying you may like to meditate on. john 22:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It should be but it is hard to change a dinosaur. john 22:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep: Noteworthy. Ombudsman 21:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Roots date back to the 19th century. No valid reason to delete. -- JJay 21:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The importance of keeping this information is similar to the preservation of Auschwitz. It's an uncomfortable experience, but very thought provoking. The ignorance, misdeeds and delusions of anti-vaxers need to be preserved to some degree. If they succeed because of our ignorance of their errors, we will see a return of mass deaths from easily preventable childhood diseases, and will certainly see the problems of overpopulation being solved in a grusome way. These people deserve a place right up there with Goebbels and Goering. -- Fyslee 22:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Abstain But please remember Wikipedia:No personal attacks. That last comment is bringing us close to invoking Godwin's Law. --Arcadian 15:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Arcadian: I don't understand why you admonish me for a mild comment This edit, on my user talk page under a big banner 4th policy violation - personal attacks yet for this person who called me a Nazi you only post a mild rebuke here. Can you explain why you treat him differently? john 21:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Because I didn't call you nor antivaxers "Nazis". I never even used the word. I have visited Auschwitz, and I only used that abhorable historical situation as an illustration of why we preserve its history. The history of antivax efforts should be preserved for the same reasons. I could have chosen many other illustrations, but since both follies involve great loss of life, it came to mind.
A few good links that expose the antivax positions:
-- Fyslee 01:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
      • What a collection, not a match for mine [1]. Bowditch has made ad hominem abusive his own. Morgan on a geocities site that is defunct, and he was an expert at ad hominem last time I looked there. Barrett is the best know pharma shill, where they have made it an art form of puting lies [2] between truth, like any good propagandist. And Friedlander doesn't communicate, as I'd like to expose his lack of knowledge. john 09:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete A bunch of nonsense intended only to push POV. Soltak | Talk 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, see no reason for deletion here. Turnstep 23:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - of historical interest (note all those surgeons in the 1936 board) but in need of balance, expansion and circumstances under which it was abolished. JFW | T@lk 14:36, 9 January 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.