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 delete. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 16:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless verified - it has had a verify tag and comments on it since January, and no action has occurred, and it is now high in the Google ranking for this subject. Midgley 13:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Oh, come on now, the objective is to build an encyclopedia, not gum up the process with ill-conceived serial AfDs. The article was cleaned up and expanded before the nuisance verify tag was added. There is plenty of evidence around the net that this practitioner has had a long and noteworthy career that a quick goofle search would have confirmed, for whomever put on the nuisance tag, which in turn has been proffered unreasonably as an excuse for deletion. Ombudsman 19:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No previous afd has been conducted on that article.

The identity of the poster of the tag is visible in the history. WP:V is only a nuisance in a certain sense, that of being one of the three bases of WP. It is also hard to see how it could be reasonable to describe such an action as "a nuisance tag" without having looked at the article enough to see who tagged it, and when.

Stifle produced this for cleaning up, User:Stifle/Delete_unless_cleaned_up, which is good, and would be appropriate if this was an afd about an article needing _cleaning up_ but this is an afd about an article that is unverified and has remained so for sufficiently long that it is now effectively being presented to the world as evidence of importance - WP Is Not for Heisenberging Google. Thank you for taking an interest. Midgley 19:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and may I mention WP:AGF and WP:NPA again? "Unreasonably" is an unjustified comment in any case, articles may persist through not being noticed to be bad, but making the rfa is not a personal attack on the author, nor should it be responded to as one. Thank you. Midgley 00:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. Without a WP:QuackTest, I'm at sea here. Is this guy real? Yes, several of the publications listed can be found in the Library of Congress. Is he notable? I've no idea. I suspect, however, that some of the details here are false, inflated, or mischaracterized. (Taught at Oxford and Cambridge? I doubt it.) Delete per copyvio per Gu (below) and lexis/nexislessness per Thatcher (below) Bucketsofg 20:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Copyvio Labeled as possible copyright violation. Text copied from [1] Gu 21:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This is one article of a class or type, which share some commonality in their initiation and in responses to both requests for them to be verified and for citations, and in the responses to proposals to delete. Midgley 22:15, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't see any assertion of notability here. The PROFTEST doesn't apply, because the article doesn't claim he's a professor. I don't know if he qualifies as an author, because I don't know if his books are self-published. I do know that anyone claiming to cure disease through nothing more than "colon cleansing" does not have science on his side.

Brian G. Crawford 22:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment. I have to laugh at orthodox medical 'science' www.whale.to/vaccine/quotes17.html] "85 percent of prescribed standard medical treatments across the board lack scientific validation" and "the average medical general practitioner is correct in his office diagnosis approximately 12% of the time". If you study natural healing www.whale.to/w/nat.html] you will see why cleansing is so effective. john 12:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. User:Whaleto is just returned from a 24 block for various sins including WP:CIVIL. It doesn't seem to have modified his behaviour at all. The variety of "natural" "healing" referred to here is Gerson "therapy" which consists largely of pouring coffee up your bottom an eating crushed fruit. The UK cancer help view on it is at http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default_printer_friend.asp?page=6019 and the US NIH surprisingly anodyne note is at http://www.cancer.gov/templates/doc.aspx?viewid=16bae44e-dd9f-4c43-8d9b-92512697e3e0&version=Patient&sectionID=4&#Section_14 . There is a hint of what is wrong with this, and a collection of other articles started by John in his comment above - the New York Times is a prominent and WP:RS resource, but what John offers here - not in support of the article but in an attack on me and a class of editors and reputable professionals - is what somebody else is said to have said in the NYT. The tropes involved do circulate, the latter looks like rubbish to me, even based on last week's clinics, but the 85% one was tracked down by David Sackett to a conversation involving Archie Cochrane in New Zealand (if I recall correctly) and reported and examined on the evidence-based-health mailing list at jisc.ac.uk (formerly mailbase.ac.uk). Far from being true, it turns out to be inverted, with examination of the evidence base for the primary intervention in common significant conditions showing a clearly evidenced basis in around 85%! And all of that is entirely irrelevant to the afd, being simply an attack by User:Whaleto using whatever unreliable anecdotes he finds to breach WP:NPA and WP:AGF. This is a pattern which has made him a nuisance on USENET lists for many years and deserves censure. Midgley 13:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. He is really only notable to a few of the editors here, otherwise for the most part as notable as any other practitioner of alternative medicine. Andrew73 23:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lexis/Nexis has no hits on "Richard Schulze" and ("Osho" or "colon" or "naturopath"). Therefore, even if notable for being a book author, claims are not verifiable. Remind Ombudsman and others the burden of verification is on editors wanting to keep. Did he really teach at Oxford and Cambridge or did he give a single free lecture sponsored by a student group? And so on. Thatcher131 00:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When Ombudsman becomes all words it's a sure sign the article is unsalveageble. JFW | T@lk 00:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. After a few Google tests, there is nothing nothing verifiably important or even verifiable about this guy: 1) there is no evidence that his "Osho School for Herbalists and Natural Healers" exists, 2) there is no evidence that "the School of Natural Healing" in California exists, and 3) there is slim evidence that "Trinity Medical School" in Ireland exists (one other alternative practitioner claimed to go there and an obituary for someone in the 1800s said another gentleman went there[2]). -AED 08:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)edited 04:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: no, Trinity Medical School does exist (part of St James's Hospital, Dublin). Tearlach 10:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goes by College.[3]. It is down the road from the slightly anomalous Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland by St Stephen's Green. A very pleasant city. Midgley 11:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Now we know the reason for the nuisance tag. Shulze is the number one natural healer and herbalist in the world, so there is the reason to delete him--curing the incurable is annoying to them. Midgley does have a habit of deleting medical industry irritants [4], [5], [6], [7]. Why hasn't he signed his deletion proposal, is this an attack of shyness? john 12:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGFWP:NPAWP:DICK Midgley 13:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let it be noted that John asserts there is no better or more notable natural healer or herbalist than this in the world. (I'm not misinterpreting this am I? All others can be said to be inferior, quoting this?) Midgley 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - material that comes from a single promotional website is deeply weak by WP:RS and WP:V standards. For instance, I can find no "Osho School for Herbalists and Natural Healers"; and Cortijo Romero is not a university as claimed, but a 20-room Spanish villa offering residential course holidays. Tearlach 23:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Appears to be a copyvio, I think we should leave this to WP:CP. Stifle 23:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Wider Comment. Stifle blanked the copyvio content in this article, Ombudsman has now reverted it, and removed the copyvio tag with no discussion here or on the article discussion page and providing no indication of a licence for this to be published here. In the several links to largely irrelevant afd discussions that User:Whaleto provided, there are edits by Ombudsman of other people's comments, and an edit of the discussion after the closing. Clearly the request on a closed discussion lacks the force of a direct order backed up by locking the database record, but all fo these acts seem to me to be objectionable, and part of a pattern of behaviour which has persisted despite periodic comments and exasperation by various other editors at least as long as I have known of Ombudsman. Is the contribution of the trio of Whaleto, Ombudsman and the anonymous IP address user calling himself "The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219" sufficient to outweigh the effort required to fix this sort of entry and the disruption caused by such behaviour and edits? Midgley 02:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"""Appears to me that Midgley has a problem with Ombudsman. Who was the "Invisible Anon"? Is Midgley the official Wikopedia guardian? Is there one? I am a newer editor, but it appears that there are some vicious battles.

• Delete as above and Comment: I originally put the copyvio tag on this article and there is still a rest of the copy of the biography on [8] left, so I'm going to remove that copied sentences too. Gu 08:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.