Deletion of Onion Juice Therapy

Comment: The majority of the article does not appear to be written from a . There is a  issue with the creator/main contributing editor who has a strong personal interest in the subject (see website http://www.brokenearth.org/cancer/index.htm and Talk:Onion_Juice_Therapy). The article also has  issues. Although there are sources for onions having anti-cancer properties http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Oct04/onions.cancer.ssl.html I can find no independent reliable sources for onion juice therapy per se. See http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=onion%20juice%20therapy&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=ws Google scholar results. The deductive reasoning - that because onions have anti-cancer properties therefore onion juice is an effective treatment of cancers - sounds like  to me
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:NPOV||WP:COI||WP:NOTABILITY||WP:OR)

Comment: Not notable under 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: 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 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

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 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: 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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:N)