Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health Ranger

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 Delete — Caknuck (talk) 08:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Health Ranger[edit]

Notability, recreated after 2 speedy deletions. UtherSRG (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability supported by enough third-party sources. StrengthOfNations (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - well sourced, but no notability asserted. Rudget.talk 17:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete it seems like the article's main point is that it should survive an afd. --Brewcrewer (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. It can't really be helped; if you don't include some assertion of notability, that in itself is reason to delete. StrengthOfNations (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article reads like a cry for help, but a search of sources, doesn't really find anything which asserts notability. scope_creep (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Rudget. jj137 (Talk) 22:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; there are sources, but they are either incidental or not independent. — Coren ^(talk) 00:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As the article notes, the lack of major media sources is due to systemic bias. Control Hazard (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Struck comment by indef blocked sockpuppet. — Coren ^(talk) 21:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - In 2007, a Wikipedia article was created about the Health Ranger, but as of November 19, it appeared destined for deletion due to scarcity of third-party non-blog published sources. Thus, having criticized the mainstream media on many occasions for its failure to adequately cover the benefits of alternative medicine and natural foods (due to its being financed largely by advertising by processed food manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies), the Health Ranger was now finding that same media blackout preventing him from being covered by secondary sources such as Wikipedia. The Health Ranger's disdain for mainstream media had been expressed in the past by comments such as, "How can you get an honest story when all the people writing the stories are, in effect, paid by the drug companies? You can't, and that's why most of the information out there is just hogwash. It's completely distorted; it's basically payola. You pay the right publisher enough money in advertising; you have influence over their content. That's why you can only get trusted content from sources that are truly independent."^[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stayman Apple (talk • contribs) 13:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - What sources, in this case, qualify as being "truly independent" given the intertwined influence of media conglomerates, big business, etc. in the mainstream, citable-by-Wikipedia media which contributes to the scarcity of coverage of alternative medicine, the Health Ranger, etc. Stayman Apple (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Given that the "evil mainstream media" is positively in love with that sort of pseudoscientific slop, and will cover with glee the numerous quacks and healers pushing their wares regardless of how dangerous they are— as long as they can make a sensationalist or "feel good" story out of it— your claims of media bias as an excuse for a lack of sources ring particularly hollow. — Coren ^(talk) 14:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        How do you account for the lack of sources then? Stayman Apple (talk) 14:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Have you considered that the "Health Ranger" might simply not be notable? — Coren ^(talk) 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        But his writings are so cogent and informative. I think he's underappreciated. Stayman Apple (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What you think of his writings is not relevant. What is relevant is reliable sources that are verifiable. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        It's relevant to me, though. And that's something you can never take away. Stayman Apple (talk) 15:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        By the way, the Health Ranger would say that it's actually the mainstream healthcare system (big pharma, etc.) who are the followers of pseudoscience pushing dangerous wares. They just happen to be the ones in power and able to influence what shows up in the media. See http://www.newstarget.com/021922.html I would challenge you to point out any claim of his that is suspect. Ending consumption of refined sugar and white flour and following his other advice will in fact reverse type 2 diabetes. Stayman Apple (talk) 17:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes. He could also say that the earth is hollow and filled with whipped cream. That's in no way relevant to this discussion. — Coren ^(talk) 17:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        If the allegedly pseudoscientific nature of his material and the question of whether he is a quack is not relevant to the discussion, then why did you describe it as such above? Stayman Apple (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        What Mike Adams may say about the media isn't relevant. — Coren ^(talk) 19:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And let me ask you all this: What makes the Health Ranger less notable than, say, the Angry Nintendo Nerd? Both are subjects pretty much lacking in published sources media; virtually all the google hits are to content created by the individual himself (e.g. videos of Angry Nintendo Nerd's review of Friday the 13th or the Health Ranger's articles on superfoods) or to blog references. So why keep one and not the other? There just happen to be more Wikipedians who are fans of the Angry Nintendo Nerd than the Health Ranger and deem him important, so the former gets kept. It's just a case of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Stayman Apple (talk) 20:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first off, Angry Nintendo Nerd doesn't have an article, but is simply a redirect to the article of a web site that is (at least marginally) sourced and which meets WP:WEB.
But if you like quoting from the WP space, you might want to read WP:WAX. The fact that other non-notable topics have articles is not a reason to keep this one— at best, it's a good reason to bring the others to AfD. — Coren ^(talk) 20:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Google gives 43,800 hits for the search combo ["Health Ranger" "Mike Adams"]. That's a large ammount of hits for something presumed of lacking notability. Yet I haven't searched in depth these hits and I don't know how many are prime quality sources, if any. I suspect the authors have done a poor research job. (Note: I have no serious opinion on this issue, just read about this AFD at the CSB WikiProject). --Sugaar (talk) 16:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete there's nothing there that' particularly great, source-wise, supporting the non-notability. delete the article, and salt it. IF a good article can be written, it can be sandbox'd, then the move request can be filed, with explanations. ThuranX (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2007 (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 Health Ranger exposes health deceptions while promoting honest health solutions, Mike Adams, Sept. 30, 2005.

[1] the Health Ranger exposes health deceptions while promoting honest health solutions, Mike Adams, Sept. 30, 2005.

[1]