Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Medicine

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 Snow keep. . The delete votes seem to be SPAs with a COI issue. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Medicine[edit]

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

Subjective and critical content Q.leroy (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Q.leroy's WP activity and possible bad faith WP:Disruptive request that this article be deleted seems odd. Perhaps Q.leroy's own WP page Lendico is a better candidate for deletion as it seems just an advertorial. As requested by others Q.leroy needs to expand upon her/his reasons for doing so. RevTim0 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: per significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. Subject of the article meets WP:GNG. 79616gr (talk) 12:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 79616gr, the article has significant coverage, so meets general notability. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:22, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily meets notability guidelines. However the tone seems over-critical to someone who knows nothing about the organistion (not really sure why there is a "criticism" section as the whole article seems pretty critical to me). There seems to have been a lot of toing and froing on the TP with a lot of heated POV discussion between supporters and detractors of the organisation. A much more neutral approach to this subject is needed IMO. Harry the Dog WOOF 14:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article needs major improvements no denying that but I'm not really seeing anything worth deleting so I'll have to say Keep. –Davey2010^Talk 15:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. ^BE _CK ^Y _SA ^{Y L}E _S 16:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article has had significant oversight from WP senior editors and admins from the start, so this is as balanced as the subject can get using RS. The topic has significant coverage in the media, most of it unflattering, so meets general notability. There is an amount of pressure from subjects of the group who want to include WP:Fringe material or have article deleted. This makes the article more relevant and notable to keep. RevTim0 (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Given that there are no reliable sources beyond newspaper articles that themselves contain rumour I consider that deletion of the article should definitely be considered. Add to that the fact that certain editors are hell bent on vandalism in keeping a particular reference in that is off topic and does not mention the subject and can only be wanted to remain in order to seek to paint the subject in a certain light there is a real issue of bias in this article. It has also been impossible to have anything other than negative viewpoints included in the article even when there other material that could be cited. This article will always have controversy.Choose12 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

-Choose12 above has previously declared her/himself as having a conflict of interest as a Universal Medicine member. RevTim0 (talk) 07:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There have been attempts at adding balanced quotes from reliable sources, sometimes from the same sources already cited on the article - but these have been taken down or deemed not part of consenus and therefore not allowed to go up. There has been, what seems like, a continuous question, within many areas, running on the TP - why can't this be added? One editor says yes, another says no - but always the negative content survives any balance to this POV is subverted or taken down. The article will never have a balanced presentation whilst this continues. Notability is about what an organisation has done and is known for - nothing is discussed as to what this organisation has contributed in a positive light at all - it is only deemed notable for that fact that newspapers (a lot of them tabloid) have written negative articles about it. To keep this site up perpetuates a negative attack on a living person and his organisation.Tribscent08 (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are two core tenets of Wikipedia that are at play against each other in this article and these are the principles of neutrality and verifiability. One of the key principles of neutrality is to present facts, not opinion, and that the facts are verifiable. The aspect of verifiability is being misused in this article to be able to support the claim of neutrality. The quoted aspects of many (most?) of the citations is someone's opinion, and they are presented in such a way as to appear as referenced facts. However much of what is presented is referenced opinion rather than referenced fact. It is a key WP principle to Indicate the relative prominence of opposing views. Even though there are many supportive opinions of Universal Medicine (see https://www.universalmedicine.com.au/writing-student-body ) they are deemed original research and cannot be cited. The opinions exist and it is fact that these opinions are there, but they are not presented because they have not been reported by a third party. The overall effect of this is to give the impression that there are no positive opinions, which improperly represents the prominence of opposing views. My opinion is that the overall tenor of this article is detrimental to the neutrality principle of wikipedia and principle of verifiability is being misused to support the negative bias to this article.Paniteri (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paniteri above has been a member of WP for 3 days and has made 2 edits. Paniteri are you a follower or supporter of Universal Medicine? RevTim0 (talk) 02:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC) Also Paniteri is purposely misleading by calling facts "opinion". The facts are journalist fact-checked facts from RS that are from reliable newspaper articles. Enough fibbing please. RevTim0 (talk) 07:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am a supporter of UM and WP. Please read carefully what I have said. Lets look at this statement: Benhayon "controlled every aspect of our lives". This is someone's observation of what is happening. Surely no one has that power — I doubt anyone would really accept that as fact. But it is someone's opinion, which they are totally entitled to hold. I have no issue with you or anyone having their view on the world. What I am concerned about is that this entry is able to present opinions such as this and because they have been reported in a newspaper article this somehow then elevates them to facts. This results in a biased article and is contrary to the principle of giving appropriate prominence to opposing views. The keeping of the article as it stands would be detrimental the reputation of WP as a reliable source. Paniteri (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paniteri, thank you for confirming you have a problem with a few sentences in the article and lobbying for its deletion. Considering this it seems WP:Disruption is very much in play and thus I also move for WP:SK on this article. RevTim0 (talk) 08:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was started a month ago and is under construction WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Meets WP:ORG notability and WP:RS reliable sources. There are significant verified and notable facts within the article, including contentious therapeutic claims; singular inclusion in parliamentary report; regulatory action against charity; suppression of government documents; cult consultancy reporting ex followers employing its counselling services; Google search removals; patient complaints; book burning etc. The neutrality principle shouldn't be misused to suppress negative facts, including that such organizations as Universal Medicine are by their nature polarizing, and also actively suppressing criticism and unfavourable information. Positive bias is readily available within UM's copious internet propaganda. XRii (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have concerns this deletion listing is a bad faith nomination and potential vandalism. The nominator has listed "subjective and critical content" as grounds for deletion, which are not WP's accepted criteria. XRii (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As pointed as page is it is totally reflective of all RS's. The critics of this page are adherents to the WP:fringe group who have adendas to block all reference to factual RS's on the net about UM. 2013Ca55 (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. The content accurately reflects the numerous reliable independent sources. Being negative in overall tone is a reflection of the fact that the sources are also overwhelmingly critical, and that in turn is a reflection of the generally poor reputation of cults. Guy (Help!) 08:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with reservations. The number of single-purpose accounts operating on this article (on both sides) is concerning (by my count, at least five of the above participants have edited no other mainspace article), and there are a few issues with WP:NPOV, but it does appear to meet GNG. Whatever happens it needs close watching. Frickeg (talk) 09:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, NPOV doesn't mean that we delete any article that is not flattering to the subject. I too am somewhat concerned at the single purpose accounts buzzing around this article like mosquitoes around a lightbulb, but that is not in itself a reason to delete. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I share XRii concerns that this is a bad faith nomination for delete and ask the editor who initiated this process to expand upon their reasons for doing so. 79616gr (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and, per RevTim0's suggestion near the top, Nominate and Delete Lendico. Pax 08:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Q.leroy has chosen not to expand upon the reasons for nominating this article for deletion I move for WP:SK. The delete nomination is in bad faith and disruptive/vandalism. No uninvolved editor or admin has moved in favor of deleting it, and the consensus is the article should stay but needs work. 79616gr (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable enough. Nom is suspect. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:36, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I nominated this article for its obvious criticism and conflict of interest. The conflict of interest is not positive in that case, as the authors clearly have a strong negative opinion on the entity discussed here: Universal Medicine. I respect opinions and the liberty of expression, nevertheless Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be a place to record opinion and especially of critical nature. Here are the main reasons that pushed me to submit this article for deletion: 1st: The use of tabloid articles in order to present false "facts" => "The religious aspect of the belief system attached to Universal Medicine and its number of dedicated followers has resulted in Universal Medicine being characterised as a cult" => Serge Benhayon have not been charged, arrested, or convicted of any dishonesty offence by any Australia court. Therefore this type of accusation, even when coming from a tabloid, is defamatory and illegal (see Phoenix Global own legal claim to Google: the publishers are liable for civil damage under the Defamation Act 2005 (Qld)). I believe the appropriate word for Universal Medicine practices would be "theosophy" as rightfully used by UK government UK Government during their court decision. 2nd: Half of the references used to build this articles are from three main authors: Jane Hansen, Heath Aston and Kaye Byron. The Universal Medicine WP article has also be written by three main authors: 79616gr, XRii and RevTim0, which are also the main contributors of this deletion discussion. Personally, I do not believe in coincidence. 3nd: The reliability of most sources is doubtful. Can we call tabloid such as the "Australian Daily Telegraph", "Sydney Morning Herald", "The Northern Star Lismore", "Northern Rivers Echo Lismore" or "News.com.au" reliable sources? Moreover, all of these sources are coming from the same location: New South Wales, Australia. Would that be another coincidence? Or would it just be our main tabloid writers (Jane Hansen, Heath Aston and Kaye Byron) using their journalistic influence on their close network? 4th: The overall tone of the article is clearly critical and does not reflect the neutrality needed into an encyclopedia. In comparison, the article written on Adolf Hitler IS truly neutral.

I would normally advocate the modification of this article in order to make it neutral, but the circumstances make it difficult in that case: the overall content need to be revised and we can observe an obvious lobbying being practiced by 79616gr, XRii and RevTim0 making it very difficult to objectively participate in the modification of this article. Finally, I deplore the need for 79616gr to speed up the process of deletion, showing again its high (conflict of) interest in the topic. Q.leroy (talk) 12:22, 23 January 2015 (CET+1)

Q.leroy. Your paranoid conspiracy theory comments about me are incorrect. You have no understanding of Australia media in your "tabloid" comments as you are from Europe (CET+1). You do not understand where the primary activities of UM are located. You have been provided with paranoid delusional information in your endeavour to have WP UM page removed. None of your arguments for removal are inline with WP policy and you are purposely acting disruptive. Your comments also reflect a vengance aspect to your actions. RevTim0 (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear RevTim0, I apologize if I offended you in any way. The facts and opinions I expressed concerning UM article are the results of personal research and not the results of "paranoid delusional information". And I can assure you that being European does not affect my ability to recognize a tabloid. According to WP own policy WP:IRS, using questionable sources that have "a poor reputation for checking the facts [...] and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions." must be avoided. Now if we look at the definition of tabloid journalism, we can observe that it is considered to be "a style of journalism that tends to emphasize topics such as sensational crime stories, astrology, gossip columns about the personal lives of celebrities". After a quick check of the references used in UM article, I quickly realized that a large part of them should not be considered as reliable sources. The The Daily Telegraph (Australia) for example is clearly defined as being a tabloid in WP and I believe that "Doubtful News" can also be referenced as a questionable source. Finally, I would like to remind you that stating a POV in WP is generally not accepted while the tone used in the UM article is clearly subjective and expressing a critical POV. For more information on the topic, please refer to Wikipedia:Point of view. Q.leroy (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2015 (CET+1)

I want to be really clear here on what you are implying in your comments Q.leroy as my impression of the point you are making is that the 3 editors you named, of which I am one, correspond to the 3 journalists you also list? Regardless of who I am, the attempted disclosure of another editors personal details is a really serious thing on Wikipedia, see WP:PRIVACY. Could you please clarify? 79616gr (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you bring that up 79616gr. I would not allow myself to post personal information about WP users but I can understand your misunderstanding. I stated facts and observations concerning the way the article have been written; and raised questions about the correlation between "apparently" unrelated events. After this, I believe WP users can make up their own POV. But the way you react towards those observations is simply proving my point and I thank you for this. Q.leroy (talk) 22:31, 25 January 2015 (CET+1)

Thanks for clarifying your position Q.leroy on the abuse of WP:PRIVACY as your insinuation is now clear, and of what it's worth very far from the truth. I hope your previous comments will be taken in to account by the admins who review this page as part of this deletion discussion as I view them as very inapproriate. I have no desire to engage in any form of dialogue with you that is unrelated to the facts of the content of the article in question and it's further evolution. 79616gr (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again 79616gr, I am sorry if you feel exposed in any way as this this not my intention. You actions talk for themselves. Q.leroy (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit] After more researches on Wikipedia, I found out that JzG, also known in this deletion conversation as Guy, is an administrator and heavy participant of the Universal Medicine article (creator of the article). We could therefore assume that he also took part in the decision responsible for the control imposed on the modification of the article: "The Arbitration Committee has permitted Wikipedia administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on any editor editing this page or associated pages". Guy is also responsible for erasing parts of an article I participated in a few month back for uncertain reason: "Lendico". In the mean time, the profile pages of 79616gr, XRii and RevTim0 disapeared and are no longer available. Finally, those three accounts were created within a week: 79616gr on the 26th of December, XRii on the 29th of December and RevTim0 on the 23rd of December 2014. Are those actions all coincidences? Or is someone using Wikipedia with wrongful intention...? Q.leroy (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2015 (CET+1)

It is also perhaps worth noting re JzG that he has aligned to the writer of certain negative blogs about Universal Medicine and has in twitter conversations encouraged her to provide him more information. This connection seems to bring into question JzG's neutrality as an editor on this articleChoose12 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

uh-oh! Looks like UM insider Choose12 has been cyber-stalking WP editor JzG. Typical of UM. RevTim0 (talk) 11:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RevTim0, please refrain yourself from discrediting people by using personal attack (see WP:PA). This type of observation is not constructive and does not bring anything to this debate. Q.leroy (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2015 (CET+1)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite I find the comparison to the neutral language in the lead to the Hitler page instructive. By comparison, this looks like someone's pet page that is pushing a POV. That there has been "senior" wikipedia editor involvement is all the more troubling. Needs to be rewritten to be instructive and not push a POV. BakerStMD T|C 17:53, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to edit the article, if you can find reliable independent sources that describe UM other than as an exploitative cult. You may find them in short supply, since UM is, according to a large number of reliable sources, an exploitative cult. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Guy, for sharing your POV with us. Nevertheless, I do not believe it is ethical to use your position of administrator in order to push forward your own POV on WP. You can do so in newspapers and tabloids, but WP is an encyclopedia and as such, should remain free of POV. Q.leroy (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2015 (CET+1)

It's not a POV, it's a statement of fact. The sources are in the article. If Bakerstmd can find any sources contradicting those we use, they can be included too. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know that an article could be entirely rewritten on WP. This seems to be the most reasonable solution given the situation. Could a different administrator supervise the process? Thank you BakerStMD for you input. Q.leroy (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2015 (CET+1)

No administrators "supervise" the process. People write and edit articles, edits which violate policy will be removed. Admins only get involved in an admin capacity when there are conduct issues, such as the numerous single-purpose advocacy accounts who have been trying to skew the contents of this article. Guy (Help!) 07:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly involved in the redaction of this article: from its creation to the constant editing. And I thank you to lead me to the single-purpose advocacy accounts section of WP. By looking at the log of the UM article main writers, we can clearly see that their account where created with the only goal to write this article (and in some cases, disrupt WP participants). For more information or to get an overview of the fraud please check the following links: RevTim0 log, 2013Ca55 log, 79616gr log and XRii log. Q.leroy (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Q.leroy. Please stop your involvement in this article immediately due to your "paid POV" conflict of interest as referred to elsewhere. Thank you. 2013Ca55 (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I deplore your attempt to discredited me by implying that I am in any way related to UM. The accusation you made on my talk page are only representative of your distress and lack of arguments concerning the facts I broad up. Please concentrate on the discussion concerning the article rather that trying to discredit me and other users. Q.leroy (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to offer an alternative explanation as to why somebody whose only other history on Wikipedia is a spam article on his employer, would take any interest in this subject. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The subject is unquestionably notable. The sourcing is solid. Unfortunately in real life sometimes there just aren't two equal sides to a controversial subject. If the article seems to have a critical tone, it's because pretty much all of the information coming from RS sources paints this group as a fringe cult. That said, some of the people who have been editing the article do appear to have their own WP:AGENDA that is decidedly hostile to the subject. But again, the sources say what they say. And that's what we go with. Lastly there is no doubt at all that this AfD is a frivolous nomination by adherents of UM who have an established track record of trying to suppress any negative coverage or discussion of the organization. I regard this AfD as a fairly naked attempt at censorship. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:43, 26 January 2015 (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.