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.
Does not seem notable, though there is an impressively long list of books listed. Article is highly laudatory and is loaded with
promotion of fringe topics.
Delta13C (
talk) 19:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article started of badly with
mass original research in 2007. The article is not notable and is like an advert. There are many promotional alternative medicine books that mention him that cannot be counted towards notability.
QuackGuru (
talk) 21:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per OP. The tone of the article is also disgustingly promotional.
142.105.159.60 (
talk) 21:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. Ugh the referencing is a beast. I'm trying to verify the first couple of sources to see if it's possible to improve the article. So far, the 2014 revised edition of the Zusne source
[1] does actually talk about Schwartz, not super in-depth, but more than a passing mention. And he's mentioned on 3 pages of the Ostrander 1974 source,
[2] but the snippets available on google don't show enough to be able to tell how in depth the coverage is.
—PermStrump(talk) 21:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I've added a few sources and verified some of the sources already listed, and I think he meets GNG. From what I've read so far, he doesn't sound as fringe-y as the current wording in the article would make it seem.
—PermStrump(talk) 00:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete The article is full of "miracle" type claims that are either uncited, or offline-cited so that they cannot be investigated or confirmed. This kind of stuff should absolutely not be allowed to stay here in Wikipedia's voice. Even the few bits of actual biography - he served in the Dutch Army, he was in the Dutch underground, etc. - are unsourced. --
MelanieN (
talk) 00:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Have decided to relist per
Permstrump's work coming after most of the comments, which had referred to a promotional tone that has been reduced with referencing. Needs consensus now more facts are available.
KaisaL (
talk) 00:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
KaisaL (
talk) 00:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as examinations including WorldCat show nothing actually convincing.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:38, 9 July 2016 (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.
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.
Does not seem notable, though there is an impressively long list of books listed. Article is highly laudatory and is loaded with
promotion of fringe topics.
Delta13C (
talk) 19:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article started of badly with
mass original research in 2007. The article is not notable and is like an advert. There are many promotional alternative medicine books that mention him that cannot be counted towards notability.
QuackGuru (
talk) 21:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per OP. The tone of the article is also disgustingly promotional.
142.105.159.60 (
talk) 21:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment. Ugh the referencing is a beast. I'm trying to verify the first couple of sources to see if it's possible to improve the article. So far, the 2014 revised edition of the Zusne source
[1] does actually talk about Schwartz, not super in-depth, but more than a passing mention. And he's mentioned on 3 pages of the Ostrander 1974 source,
[2] but the snippets available on google don't show enough to be able to tell how in depth the coverage is.
—PermStrump(talk) 21:36, 22 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Weak keep. I've added a few sources and verified some of the sources already listed, and I think he meets GNG. From what I've read so far, he doesn't sound as fringe-y as the current wording in the article would make it seem.
—PermStrump(talk) 00:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete The article is full of "miracle" type claims that are either uncited, or offline-cited so that they cannot be investigated or confirmed. This kind of stuff should absolutely not be allowed to stay here in Wikipedia's voice. Even the few bits of actual biography - he served in the Dutch Army, he was in the Dutch underground, etc. - are unsourced. --
MelanieN (
talk) 00:36, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Have decided to relist per
Permstrump's work coming after most of the comments, which had referred to a promotional tone that has been reduced with referencing. Needs consensus now more facts are available.
KaisaL (
talk) 00:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
KaisaL (
talk) 00:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete as examinations including WorldCat show nothing actually convincing.
SwisterTwistertalk 07:38, 9 July 2016 (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.