Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onion Juice Therapy

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. One premedical study outlining properties of onions one hand, and indications of traditional usage that are not backed up by reliable sources on the other hand, do not allow for an article on a therapy . As suggested below, incremental addition of material elsewhere might be possible keeping in mind editorial policies but also that Wikipedia does not give medical advice. Tikiwont (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Onion Juice Therapy

Onion Juice Therapy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Potentially pseudo-science talked up to sound like medicine. While some information is backed up, a lot of the rest sounds like an advertisement for a new-age treatment, with potentially dangerous statements and vast quantities of POV. Drivenapart (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep - The article does need some cleanup (and a spellcheck) but most of the issues raised by the nominator are fixable. This appears to be a notable element of Sufi natural healing, with the references provided to support that (nom. admits that some data - and I'd argue the core data - is backed up) so I don't see a reason for deletion. ◄Zahakiel► 20:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: There may be enough for a mention in the article on Sufism, but there's hardly enough notability for a standalone article on Onion Juice Therapy, especially given this article's inevitable promotional nature. MastCell Talk 15:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Fad diet masquerading as a cancer therapy. Completely misleading, perhaps dangerously so. Not even close to notable, as far as reliable sources are concerned. With the exception of a single promotional Cornell press-release, the references are blogs and personal websites (and my own independent search found nothing more reliable). In deletion-relevant language: delete per lack of verifiability in reliable sources that address this particular subject (not just "onions" but "onion juice therapy"). Antelantalk 21:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - The majority of the article does not appear to be written from a WP:NPOV. There is a WP:COI issue with the creator/main contributing editor who has a strong personal interest in the subject (see website [1] and Talk:Onion_Juice_Therapy). The article also has WP:NOTABILITY issues. Although there are sources for onions having anti-cancer properties [2] I can find no independent reliable sources for onion juice therapy per se. See Google scholar results. The deductive reasoning - that because onions have anti-cancer properties therefore onion juice is an effective treatment of cancers - sounds like WP:OR to me. Nk.sheridan   Talk 21:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: A brief look at the cited sources says it all - blogs and NewsMax. There's nothing encyclopedic here, and no useable sources. It's not attracted enough mainstream attention to qualify as notable under WP:FRINGE. MastCell Talk 23:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - I agree that most of the sources used aren't reliable enough, but there is at least one which is, the Cornell release. I don't think it's a blog or NewsMax. -kotra (talk)
Comment I doubt a single press release is sufficient to establish notability. What's more, the press release has a link to the journal where the study is, ostensibly, available - but there is no sign of that article on the journal's own web page. Now, that means I can't read the academic article itself - but I have serious doubts that a proper scientific article would act as a sufficient basis for a stand-alone article on "onion juice therapy". It might make sense to include a brief discussion of onions in flavonoids. cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The press release cited by JamesMMc from Cornell University refers to peer reviewed articles in various journals . See; [3] also cited on Pubmed [4]. I have access to the articles if anyone want to ask questions. Nk.sheridan   Talk 00:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
What's more, the press release is not about onion juice therapy, nor are these papers. As you mentioned above, and I certainly agree, there is a WP:SYN that occurs in the jump from a discussion of the components in vitro and their effects on humans as a therapy in vivo. Antelantalk 01:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I basically agree with your argument (at least, in this case the single press release doesn't support the claim of an onion juice "therapy", and that leaves us with basically just an individual folk medicine technique, which probably doesn't deserve its own article), so I've changed my "vote" from "keep or merge" to just "merge". -kotra (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong, Strong KEEP - DIRECT SCIENTIFIC QUOTE: "Our study of 10 onion varieties and shallots clearly shows that onions and shallots have potent antioxidant and antiproliferation activities and that the more total phenolic and flavonoid content an onion has, the stronger its antioxidant activity and protective effect," says Liu". From Cornell University. PROTECTIVE EFFECT!! This is a new user who has felt attacked and instead of working on the article has had to spend all of his time figuring out how to defend against multiple attempts to delete this article on the basis of opinion, not facts - before it is really ready to be judged. THE FACTS remain clear - Onion Juice Therapy is hundreds of years old and there is a wealth of information in reputable books that are written in Farsi, Urdu, Arabic and many other languages. It is widly understood in Islamic medicine. This long standing practice is now fully supported by hard scientific FACTS presented by one of the leading universities in the US, Cornell University. Books like The Medicine of the Prophet have attempted to translate some of these more important works and will be included - as new information will be added supporting this important therapy. In an effort to respond to some of the concerns raised the article has been trimmed down to it's basics. Those who ask for deletion should be prepared to answer for the lives of those who may not be able to afford expensive medical treatment or those who have educated themselves in the dangers and wish to try something natural. Lives are in the balance. People should be afforded the opportunity to see these age old advices and methods. JamesMMc (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC) — JamesMMc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment: I'm sorry, but are you really saying that anyone who deletes this article has blood on their hands? Because that would undermine your credibility fairly severely. Please peruse WP:NOT. MastCell Talk 21:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Blood On Hands: If, Onion Juice Therapy is a safe, affordable and an effective treatment that cures cancer and people's prejudice or narrow thinking prevents it from being considered by the thousands of people who can either not afford the expensive for profit medical treatments or simply do not wish to expose themselves to chemo and radiation - as there is plenty of information that would suggest these treatments to be more barbaric than useful - THEN YES - I am saying your actions cause you to have blood on your hands. It is your credibility that is in question if you think otherwise. Conversely, if this treatment is unsafe, ineffective and I keep pushing it because I have some bias or vested or hidden interest - then the blood will be on my hands as well as the responsibility for having cheated people. JamesMMc (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
        • Again, please peruse WP:NOT, particularly the section headed "Wikipedia is not a soapbox". MastCell Talk 16:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or Merge - As per Zahakiel. Article suffers from exaggeration and POV, but those aren't valid reasons for deletion. Seems to be notable. If not keep, merge with onion, Cancer#Complementary and alternative, and/or Unproven cancer therapy (where I see a link to Onion juice therapy, so this article wouldn't be orphaned if it had the correct title). (changed vote from "keep" to just "merge" due to current lack of enough reliable sources for its own article) -kotra (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I can believe that some chemicals in onions show potential anti-cancer properties in laboratory studies, and I can believe that there is an Islamic tradition of using onions. But onion juice as a treatment or therapy for cancer doesn't follow from any reliable source in the article. The author's obvious emotional attachment to the subject has led him to stretch a few facts into something beyond the scope of what a Wikipedia article should be in terms of original research and notability. However, perhaps some of the info based on reliable sources can be merged into onion or unproven cancer therapy (as suggested above). Peacock (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per Peacock. This is pure WP:SOAP. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - note that WP:PEACOCK and WP:SOAP aren't in and of themselves reasons for deletion. If it fails due to the deletion policy, that's another thing. -kotra (talk) 18:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
He referenced User:Peacock, not WP:PEACOCK. User:Peacock made the Delete arguments immediately preceding Nomoskedasticity's Delete argument. Antelantalk 19:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. My comment is pretty useless then, so I've struck it. -kotra (talk) 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I didn't know which one he was referring to until I clicked through and saw the bird itself. Antelantalk 19:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
WP:SOAP is part of WP:NOT. I figure claiming that the article is pure soap works pretty well as an argument for deletion: it is an instance of what Wikipedia is not. FWIW, I agree as well with the claim that there is no notability here; MastCell's description of the sources is right on target. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I realize now that WP:SOAP is part of WP:NOT, and thereby a good reason for deletion if it's just soapboxing with no reliably sourced notable content; that's why I struck my entire comment, not just the first part. I still disagree that there's no notability here, though, and MastCell's description doesn't seem to consider the Cornell reference, which looks like a reliable source to me. -kotra (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
reply to this appears above, cheers, Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a reliable source that one researcher has found phytochemicals in onions which inhibit proliferation of cell lines in a Petri dish. That's a preclinical result, and the authors are fairly clear (in the discussion section of their article, which incidentally is PMID 15506817) to emphasize that the in vivo effect of these phytochemicals is unknown, and that any health benefits are speculative. The same author has looked at cranberries, black beans, apples, and tortilla chips in the same manner and reported similar findings (check PubMed). To take this one paper from 2004 and its in vitro findings and create an article on "Onion Juice Therapy" is textbook WP:SYN. My point is that the cited source, from Cornell, says nothing more than that onions, like many fruits and vegetables, contain chemicals which inhibit cancer cells in vitro. That's worth a footnote in onion or phytochemical, but not a whole article on onion juice as a cure for cancer - the source makes nothing like anything remotely resembling the claims for which it's being used in this article, and it certainly says absolutely nothing about "Onion Juice Therapy". Again, textbook WP:SYN. MastCell Talk 20:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You make a strong argument. This particular source alone is not enough to carry an article on this subject. There may be other sources that can, (for example some of the citations in this article might have some merit, if verified by someone, but as the article stands right now, it's probably not good enough. I'm changing my vote from keep to just merge. -kotra (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable under WP:FRINGE. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and MastCell. No reliable sources exist establishing enough notability to warrant a stand-alone article. Yilloslime (t) 21:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Rewrite Change the tone of the article. Place the therapy in historic and regional/cultural context based on reliable sources (no blogs or promotional booklets), then end with a section that briefly indicates what modern science says (onions contain certain substances) and doesn't say (high quantities of these substances cure cancer). Delete if no reliable sources are found, otherwise decide whether to keep or to merge with onion. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment - We are still faced with the problem that there are no reliable sources for "onion juice therapy". The path you propose might be fruitful as a way to approach the issue briefly within other articles. But I still see no grounds for an article bearing a title that includes the word "therapy", the way this one does. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

Aside from topic matter itself a few issues with the article to point out:

  • This article created on 7th May after similarly named Onion juice therapy (note the lower case cf Onion Juice Therapy) was speedily deleted on 5th May (I think)
  • WP:MOS would be quite clear that the article name is wrong to use title case and Onion Juice Therapy should be Onion juice therapy - but no point renaming until this AfD discussion completed
  • See WP:Orphan - the article is not cited by any other mainspace articles
RESPONSE: The articlehas not been up for more than a few days!—Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMMc (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 May 2008
Also note, if this article had correct capitalization (Onion juice therapy), it wouldn't be orphaned, since one mainspace article links to it: [5]. -kotra (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue for discussion is whether the topic matter is notable or not. That evidence based medicine might reject the approach as unfounded or even disproved scientifically, or even therefore dangerous for its denial of proven treatments are not the issues here. Wikipedia is not about our western views of "truth" (ie not WP:SPOV) but rather WP:NPOV which permits significant minority view points. As such, us conventional medical adherents need to consider this article not as to whether we might think is a good idea or potentially dangerous for people to follow, but whether there is a non-trivial minority who adhere to this approach - i.e. we should treat the article in same manner as say homeopathy or traditional chinese medicine. So comment above of "Fad diet masquerading as a cancer therapy. Completely misleading, perhaps dangerously so" is not in itself a good argument for AfD - I personally have this same real-world view on homeopathy, yet would staunchly support the inclusion of homeopathy article here in wikipedia if that were nominated for AfD. So, IMHO, the two issues are:

  1. For this AfD - is Onion juice therapy an established non-trivial approach taken in Sufi culture ? If so then the topic should be included in wikipedia (with suitable change in article name capitalisation)
  2. If the topic merits inclusion, and this AfD dismissed, then there are quite separate issues as to WP:NPOV on claims of effectiveness, WP:PROVEIT, WP:cite from WP:Reliable sources to WP:Verify etc etc. Quite honestly if a fringe theory seems so wacky as to not merit significant mainstream medical research, then the lack of dismissive mainstream research does not tip the balance of how WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight should apply to the article - mainstream assessment would still apply as predominant position of the article.

So what's my view on this AfD ?

  • Onion intake or use of extract as a cancer prevention (as per the Cornell University reference given) is quite separate from the use of onions as an active treatment after cancer has already become established. So, being therefore tangential to onions as a active therapy, probably largely needs removing from the article (if article name were Onions as prevention and cure of cancer, then would be on-topic vs off-topic).
  • Overall AfD - I'll reserve judgement for now as I would be swayed if some WP:RS could establish it as a non-trivial alternative/Sufi-cultural healing/medical practice (otherwise for the chop).
  • I've left a heads-up on WP:ISLAM to see if other editors with knowledge of Sufism culture can help us on these issues. Especially relevant, I think, is MastCell's useful pointer to WP:FRINGE - I suspect pendulum currently for deleting the article, but it would be good to know if it is swinging in a vaccuum or if their is anything substantial in the way of the wrecking ball :-) David Ruben Talk 23:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Author Weighs In
To help illustrate the possible Islamic/Sufi Traditional Medicine bias here. this article used the template of Juice Fasting as a basis for it's creation. I do not see anyone weighing in on that subject article. It is a near duplicate to the Onion Juice Therapy article in presentation, POV, intent, etc.
If this was an article in the German, India, even Japan Wikipedia - no one would call this therapy non-medical. There is an enormous amount of work pointing to the benefits of raw naturla juices. The pharma industry has usurped these age old remedies for decades - have taken plant (natural) cures and have effectively stolen this knowldge and then made synthetic poisons that they can patent, own and profit from. The trend is moving the other way - NATURAL is best. Here is just one ofhundreds of examples out of most people's frame of refrence.
"The prophet used to “prescribe” food for ailments even more than he prescribed herbs or medicines. The Prophet used everything from barley soup to honey to camel’s milk to heal his followers and advised them to eat certain foods to prevent or cure other ailments. In fact, food is one of the oldest and most respected healing tools available to man. Even the first fruits of paradise - the apple and/or the pomegranate - have hundreds of curative properties (Yeager, p.21). The Chinese and Indian healers have used the properties of food to heal for thousands of years.
What is new is the medical mafias approach associating profit (not Prophet) with healing. Depriving people of this information will cost many lives and all who ask to delete share in that responsibility. People should be free to choose for themselves. Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding what is best for people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMMc (talk • contribs) 02:31, 11 May 2008
Oh dear. MastCell Talk 15:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
JamesMMc, (to perhaps explain MastCell's succinct reply), the Wikipedia:General disclaimer (link provided bottom every page) states "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area." and so Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer states "WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE" (in bold no less) and your threat of "information will cost many lives and all who ask to delete share in that responsibility" is a gross breach of WP:AGF and our WP:Civility codes, for as the medical disclaimer continues, "None of the individual contributors, system operators, developers, sponsors of Wikipedia nor anyone else connected to Wikipedia can take any responsibility for the results or consequences of any attempt to use or adopt any of the information presented on this web site." If you can not work within these guidelines then you need to question whether wikipedia is a place you can work within. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#MANUAL - we don't instruct readers. Finally your statements of "I am saying your actions cause you to have blood on your hands" or conversely of "then the blood will be on my hands" are both untrue - the medical disclaimer concludes with "Nothing on Wikipedia.org or included as part of any project of Wikimedia Foundation Inc., should be construed as an attempt to offer or render a medical opinion or otherwise engage in the practice of medicine." - so no blood on anyones hands, and that's official policy. David Ruben Talk 19:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Building further on David Ruben's comment, it's of course one of Wikipedia's goals to have as accurate information as possible on all subjects, including medicine. But anyone who relies on Wikipedia for life-and-death medical information is.. well, I wouldn't say they have it coming, but it's not a smart thing to do. -kotra (talk) 19:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Darwin award, perhaps?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Onions contain flavonoids which have an important function in mopping up free radicals and therefore limit cell damage. There are, however, lots of other natural products that contain similar flavonoids. I think that, while this is indeed a known therapy, the article should reflect this. As it is, the reader has no clue as to why onions may have a positive effect. Does the positive effect keep increasing as we consume more and more flavonoids? Hardly, there is a study on dark chocolate that shows a saturation effect. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    What ? You mean there is a limit to the amount of scrumptious dark chocolate I can claim is medicinally allowable - bummer :-) David Ruben Talk 21:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    I think one needs to be very cautious in extrapolating from a theoretical benefit to claim that a substance prevents cancer. The canonical example is beta carotene, an antioxidant which "mops up free radicals". There was preclinical and epidemiologic evidence (incidentally, much stronger than that for onion juice) that beta carotene supplementation would decrease the risk of lung cancer. However, several huge, fairly well-publicized human trials later, it's become apparent that it's either ineffective or (more likely) actually increases the risk of lung cancer in smokers. It may well be that flavinoids "mop up free radicals" and that this translates into a reduced risk of cancer, but jumping from epidemiologic or preclinical studies to that conclusion is a bad idea. MastCell Talk 22:31, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    Agreed. It is just one factor that may play a role, and research has not advanced far enough yet. What I'm thinking though is that it may explain how this therapy historically came to be. Perhaps there was a lack of flavonoids in the general diet of that time and area. Guido den Broeder (talk) 07:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note that the webpage on Sheikh Nazim (1997), Natural Medicines, Traditional Sufi Healing Methods, eventually points back to this Wikipedia article, so it can therefore not be used as a source. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:15, 13 May 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.