Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert O. Young
As disclosure: I have contributed to this article, but '''''ALL''''' of my contributions (many general improvements {10 edits over 2+ weeks}, including 3 repaired dead links and a removed dead wikilink; parallel citations across two versions of Young's core book; improved grammar, punctuation, precision and accuracy; and lastly and most importantly, a large table comparing and contrasting Young's "pH" with ''actual'' "pH", plus many self-contradictions from within Young's work—all with citations to the relevant scientific consensus positions) have '''''ALL''''' been deleted as "non ''sic'' encyclopedic crap", and again as "non-encyclopedic ''sic'' crap, 'crap' "—punctuated by blocking ''me'' (and my whole library, despite a hatnote) for "edit warring". Perhaps most importantly in the Wikipedia scheme of “Notability”: . To establish notability: 1)http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/young3.html is apparently  and Young is the subject (now ref#24); 2) on Young's Revision History page at 19:52, 7 September 2012,‎ Amatulic asserts: "prior talk page discussion agreed that Gorski is a reliable source for this account" http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/the-impending-end-of-a-horrifying-testimonial-for-an-alternative-medicine-breast-cancer-cure/ (now ref #26; it's an article about Young and one of his now-dead adherents); 3) http://www.ncahf.org/digest05/05-14.html has a short article on Young, (now ref #19); 4) http://www.irishexaminer.com/lifestyle/the-fatal-desire-to-be-healthy-210704.html (from Google News—isn't cited yet, but is also an article about Young and one of his now-dead adherents). Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria states that "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". As to the deadness of the link to "the Arizona Tribune citation", I presume that the Internet Archive could be used to repair it. I would have done so now, but it has been made ''very'' obvious to me that my help will be neither welcomed nor even tolerated there; at least thus far (I have not yet had time to address these issues precisely and more specifically with those responsible). Rudeness, repeated ongoing violation of , deletion of my efforts (in favor of non-function), the fact that the person most-helpful to me here is apparently someone in disfavor with the Wikipedian community (I initially thought that he'd done the redacting, but it now seems that he was redacted Talk:Robert_O._Young#Dutch_source_about_Young), no answers to multiply-repeated sincere requests for specifics—and all of the abuse has come from those entrusted with privileges here—is this welcome typical of that extended to all newbies? Actions and behavior speak louder than |"guidelines" and |"policies" that everyone with "power" here ignores. Special:Contributions/67.91.184.187|67.91.184.187
— [[User talk:67.91.184.187|talk]]), 23:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NTEMP||WP:RS||WP:CIV||WP:DNB||WP:CIV (Wikipedia:Notability)