Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred R. Klenner (2nd nomination)

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 was redirect to Megavitamin therapy. (non-admin closure) ansh 666 01:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fred R. Klenner

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable purveyor of high-dose vitamin treatments. Sources cited do not include high-quality coverage of him, and another search turned up a variety of alt-med fan sites. It looks like this article has been subject to major POV pushing and edit warring going back to 2007. Article fails notability guidelines per WP:ACADEMIC and WP:BASIC. Delta13C (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:53, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable and do not see where his "high-dose vitamin treatments" is notable, as well. Kierzek (talk) 17:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 21:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- non notable subject. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This looks more like a case for WP:GNG than WP:PROF, but I can't find enough non-WP:FRINGE sources to pass. It's a bit surprising, actually: I would have thought that being a pioneer of the Vitamin C megadose fringe theory (before Pauling made it famous) and being involved with the Fultz Quads would be enough both for notability and for avoiding WP:BIO1E, but the mainstream sources required by WP:NPOV just don't seem to be there. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - claims are extravagant without sourcing to prove notability. He's nowhere nearly as notable as Gary Null, who has made many similar claims. Bearian (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Weak keep~~, per number 7 of WP:Academic, he is cited in many notable books that were not cited in the page. Millbug ^talk 21:05, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- Which books? This one looks mainstream enough for me but all the rest that I can actually preview in Google books look to be themselves pushers of fringe theories, and therefore unacceptable here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Ok pushers of fringe theories, but Astrology has an article, isn't it? And there is a list of astrologers, all of them who have articles because of the only reason that they push a fringe theory; so I think the fringe character may not be considered but the notability of these sources is supported by the impact they have on society. I don't use megadoses of vitamin c nor believe in Taro or Bach flower remedies but all of them have articles and they have the status of encyclopedic matters. Remembering that I recommend a weak keep because I agree partly with the reservation about the article. Millbug ^talk 22:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- At least that one book mentions him without any in-depth coverage. Do the others mention him in more detail? Delta13C (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  [1], [2], [3],[4]. I apologize for not making a deeper research. Here I've scanned five pages of Google, bypassing all papers that may be suspicious of being pushed by people engaged with ortomolecular and even foreign language citations, although that facts "de per si" do not necessarily break WP:FRINGE. But if it's so important, if there are reasons that make all sources above worthless, I promiss to withdraw my comment. Millbug ^talk 17:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1: (Seanet site): Completely fringe science: "I have used Dr. Klenner’s methods on hundreds of patients. He is right. It helps almost every condition and situation, and my failures were due to inadequate amounts." That's almost stereotypical quackery.

2: An "orthomolecular" website. Again fringe science. Starts by comparing themselves to Semmelweiss. Not in-depth coverage.

3: In-depth coverage, but again, complete fringe publication (book released by "Basic Health Publications Inc." pushing megavitamin therapy.) --Slashme (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Megavitamin therapy --Slashme (talk) 06:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment withdrew. Millbug ^talk 17:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as this suggests he's best known for this. SwisterTwister talk 19:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect over to Megavitamin therapy and then his particular brand of that quackery can be discussed in context CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per CoffeeWithMarkets. Millbug ^talk 04:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. I cannot find evidence that this person meets any relevant notability guideline. It's a valid search term, however, so redirect per CoffeeWithMarkets. Vanamonde (talk) 11:01, 1 August 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.