Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural hygiene

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 was delete. Many of the keep comments did not address the fact that the sources were not reliable. Therefore, the article, will not pass WP:V if no reliable sources can be provided or the source's reliability can be proved, which means that this article will not pass the general notability criteria. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 01:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natural hygiene

Natural hygiene (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Lengthy article, but appears to consist largely of original research. Cites no reliable sources; the few sources cited are largely self-published and unreliable websites. Without evidence of coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources, this movement appears to fail notability criteria. MastCell Talk 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. All sources are primary, therefore fails WP:OR. One would not want to speculate about the likely result of an encounter between the author and Clostridium tetani, so one will refrain from doing so. :) Tevildo (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Sourcing to the bibliography can be done, and I note that there's no existing article about orthopathy. Mandsford (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Google Scholar search yielded results for Orthopathy as "right passion". It seems to be associated with Christian teachings rather than alternative medicine.--Lenticel (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Additional comment: The bibliography is composed of unreliable sources, including diet books and what seems to be the entire oeuvre of Herbert Shelton of "Dr. Shelton's Health School". I don't see how footnoting those books would improve the quality of sourcing here. MastCell Talk 18:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no sources for orthopathy and "natural hygiene" in Pubmed. Unrestricted search for natural hygiene yielded 277 unrelated hits on pubmed. Note that there are at least 162 hits in google scholar for natural hygiene, some of these sources came from a "Natural Hygiene Press"--Lenticel (talk) 22:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • KEEP!!! i think this article is very objective. it is a great resource for someone who would like to know more about this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.198.124 (talk) 01:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC) IP addresses don't get votes Achromatic (talk) 07:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep the sources appear fully adequate for notability, and that's the only relevant factor. DGG (talk) 00:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: I'm seeing a lot of self-published websites and unreliable sources, but no independent, reliable secondary sources. Am I missing something? MastCell Talk 19:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per sources. Ghits are not a proper measurement for notability. --Veritas (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. On the one hand, nom is correct about the sources for this article. They are very weak, self-published, and apparently unreliable. On the other hand, though, natural hygiene or orthopathy does exist as a health/treatment philosophy. The topic is, I think, notable enough that an article could be constructed for it using secondary sources. This article doesn't quite manage to do that. Tim Ross·talk 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a fringe theory and because the article lacks reliable cites. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CitiCat ♫ 04:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep. The fact that this is a fringe theory is irrelevant to AfD - we don't delete things because they're the opinions of [*insert epithet here*]. It's notable and verifiable. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - seems to fail RS, cites sites with self-interest in topic promotion. Achromatic (talk) 07:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep This article has been well written, and provides references for a number of books which without wikipedia I would not have been able to compile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.81.78.191 (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • keep- yes I know the ideas of natural hygiene are insane. But there are 63,600 google hits for the phrase, and two slightly ok articles on it in google news [[1]] which could serve as sources, probably some of the tens of thousands of google hits could provide newspaper mentions too. There are also mentions of natural hygiene in the Guardian, the Observer, and probably others, in articles about faddish diets. We can think it's fringe and still document it in an NPOV manner. One look at the article can see it hasn't even be NPOV'ed yet- wonder why? But that's easily remedied. One other thing is that this theory is also known under other names, such as raw food diet is quite similar to parts of it. Merkinsmum 13:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notability has been established. Sufficient content is salvagable per WP:PROBLEM. Afd is not cleanup. -Verdatum (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2008 (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.