Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viera Scheibner

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. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viera Scheibner

Fails professor test. Doesn't appear to be much about them that can be verifed (uses a geocites site as a cite) Geni 21:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• keep what is a professor test? And who is them? She is the most notable vaccine critic, which is why medical (allopathic) people want to keep her suppressed. john 22:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I can think of more notable without even trying.Geni 01:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • You find anyone who has written two books devoted to vaccine criticism. Pray do tell and I'll open a page to them. It is just medical politics anyway, so save me the false reasoning. She is the number one vaccine critic which is why you want to suppress a page to her, end of story. I am dying to know what your Professor test is, I'd love to see you pass these rules over Brain Deer [1], who is only notable for his attempts, through the Sunday Times, in smearing Andrew Wakefield. john 10:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not the type of case where the professor test is applicable. Viera Scheibner seems to lead some kind of campaign against vaccination which has made her known and controversial. She may be on the fringe as a scientist, but that is not a reason to delete the article, just to make sure it is NPOV. "Dr. Viera Scheibner is a retired micropalaeontologist, without any formal training in health-related sciences, who tours the world claiming that vaccines are ineffective and dangerous and lead to a host of ills such as cancer and asthma. Professionals in public health or the clinical arena are from time to time called upon to publicly respond to her, or similar, claims disseminated during tours of Europe, North America or Australasia and in books and articles." Julie Leask, Peter McIntyre, "Public opponents of vaccination: a case study", Vaccine 21 (2003), 4700–4703 (PDF) If scientists feel a need to analyse and discuss her in scientific journals and respond to her publicly, that makes her notable enough. Up+land 22:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • One of their main fears is publicity for her research into cot-death and vaccination using a special cot monitor http://www.whale.to/v/scheibner.html which proved the vaccination cot-death connection, no mention at all. They have kept off the vaccination connection on the Cot death page. I have managed to get on the vitamin C prevention discovered by Archie Kalokerinos, but the headings have been removed and the comment about it being endorsed by Linus Pauling. john 10:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't care whether she is right or not (and the article certainly should not express the POV that she is right), but the fact that she is controversial for something makes her a reasonable candidate for an article. Up+land 10:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• speedy keep: Just another nuisance AfD. As the author of several books and numerous scientific articles, there ought to be some sort of applicable criteria for an author's publishing history, which Scheibner would easily fulfill. Ombudsman 08:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Ombudsman, please have respect for due process. "Nuisance AFD" is not applicable where there are legitimate concerns about the subject's notability. The publishing history, uh, shows that she is not exactly a medical scientist. JFW | T@lk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I'm in favor of keeping this, although I hope it doesn't fall foul of Ombudsman's usual tactics. People need to know that this lady has no relevant qualifications, since she is commonly cited as a medical doctor by anti-vaccinationists or by parents who've been suckered into these things. Even when this bio first appeared, however, Ombudsman went straight in to remove this critical information, as he has done with so many of these biogs intended to create (a false) sense that there is a body of medical opinion which thinks, eg that MMR causes behavioral problems. Probably, we'll end up having to rely on the drug industry to provide the staff time necessary to watch all this stuff, which will be a shame. Before long maybe someone could make up a page of all these characters - Scheibner, the Geiers, Yazquack, Wakefield, Bradstreet and all that crowd - and people will get a real good sense of what's happening. 86.129.115.248 17:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: 'No relevent qualifications' is ad hominem, and gives the impression you need a medical (allopathic) education to form a sound opinion on vaccination, which is complete nonsense of course, but a belief medical people like to spread and fertilise, for obvious reasons. And it is completely untrue that 'she is commonly cited as a medical doctor by anti-vaccinationists'. I have been in this game for 10 years, and I can't recall one instance of that, that may have happened with a parent but so what, that is an easy mistake to make for a newcomer, and anyway, it gives the false impression being an MD is an advantage, when the medical education would be more of a hinderance. Also it gives the impression people are lying to make a better case, when any idiot can work out the truth doesn't need to lie. john 19:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Please register on Wikipedia so we can count your vote. JFW | T@lk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable Australian anti-vaccinationist, with an article about her in the Vaccine journal in December 2003 PMID 14585678. And also notable for receiving the Australian Skeptics's Bent Spoon Award. Andrew73 18:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Notoriety established in the study kindly identified by other authors. Thankfully we are allowed to have articles on quacks. JFW | T@lk 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: a notable vaccination critic and quack. --CDN99 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as per the above, and I'm closing this. If nothing else, she's a model by which quacks can be recognized as such, but that aspect needs to be stressed a bit more. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:32, 6 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.