Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaccination critics

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 of the debate was delete. --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vaccination critics

"A compilation of organisations, books and people critical of vaccination." how is that an encyclopedia article? It's not a list either. Geni 21:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the best you can come up with? What is a list in your definition? john 22:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Lists of course wikipedia is full of examples of lists.Geni 23:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'The list may be a valuable information source'. If a list of vaccine criticism books isn't useful then you are living in allopath land, where vaccines are perfect, time to think about the children, don't you think? Most people don't even know ONE of those books exist, let alone 50, but top marks for trying to keep them suppressed. john 10:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A bibliography and s list of links do not an encyclopedia article make. Szyslak ( [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 12:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think my list of books is definately encyclopedic. If vaccination was so great, how come you have to keep suppressing? john 14:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep: The article is an excellent antidote to the the documented suppression of data from the Vaccine Safety Datalink, the secrecy surrounding the 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference, and the myriad conflict of interest problems that have plagued the tainted epidemiological studies purportedly 'investigating' the massive increase in the prevalence of vaccine injuries. Promotion of informed debate is the lifeblood of the Wiki, rather than the alternative, expemplified by this ill-advised AfD. Ombudsman 01:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit you are pushing a POV?Geni 16:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

conditional keep: In Vaccine controversy, John added a list of ten vaccination critics, with no balancing information. This is a violation of policy, and User:Jimbo Wales has repeatedly asserted that NPOV is non-negotiable. My goals are not suppression, but rather maintaining proportions that conform with policy. I think it would be more useful and maintainable to include a single list to Vaccination critics instead. So if John intends to use this new page instead of including long lists of individual critics, I think this page is valuable. But if he intends to use it in addition, then I wouldn't support it. So before I commit to a vote, I'd want to know more about John's intentions for the page. Who knows -- maybe we can use this page to help forge a sustainable compromise. --Arcadian 14:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't think it's necessary to make deals with John on this. It doesn't make sense to include a long list of vaccine critics within several articles when we have a serviceable list. Put a link to this list on {{vaccines}} and we're done here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten, I think that is a productive solution, but because John isn't the only person affected, I'd rather get consensus before changing the template. At Talk:Thimerosal#Summary_of_See_also_disagreement_for_RfC, User:InvictaHOG stated that "I'll take it as is, but would understand if Ombudsman et. al would prefer to replace pox party with something else more to their liking." Perhaps it would make sense to replace pox party with Vaccination critics. If nobody objects, then if this page survives VfD, then I'll make that substitution. I think Ombudsman supports the direction we're headed (he left a kind note on my talk page about it) but let's give him some time to respond. --Arcadian 16:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a page like this that doesn't get shafted by allopaths, and a link from Vaccine controversy (which is an allopath page when I looked at it) and a page with a foot in both camps which doesn't appeal to me much, so I'd prefer a link here and to keep off that page, myself. Are you suggesting I limit my pages to individual vaccine critics? I think a page like this with all the books listed along with the organisations is valuable to offset the bias on all of the vaccine pages, and vaccine disease pages. I may try and add 'the alternative view' to those pages but it will be a battle to get one or two lines in, let alone a header. I could put the alternative view (naturopathy, nutritional med, and homeopathy) for mumps and measles, for example, here and save all those edit wars on those pages. john 19:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The critics page would serve well as a hub for the template. As it stands, there is nothing else resembling a centralized nexus where a clear account of vaccine criticism is available. Surely, this article will eventually cover epidemiological vs clinical perspectives, data manipulation, pathologies related to vaccine injury (e.g., autistic enterocolitis). Maybe, when the Age of Autism has receded into the rear view mirror, hopefully by the dawn of the next century, this page will no longer be so necessary, except as an historical footnote. Ombudsman 02:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh I don't know perhaps Vaccine controversy?Geni 02:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You would say that, you are the main hub for allopath/medical butchering of vaccine/allopathy criticism. The vaccine controversy page is a half way house controlled by vaccinators, so a link to a proper page on vaccination criticism is a good solution, but I don't expect them to give in without a fight, as vaccine criticism has been well suppressed for 150 years or so, which begs the question---what are they afraid of if vaccination is safe and effective????? Surely they would like everything to be out in the open to show vaccination is above reproach? john 10:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit its intent is as a POV fork? Uh uh. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at all the medical vaccine pages AND the vaccine disease pages they have all been written by vaccinators/allopaths, so if that isn't POV I don't know what is. If you would like to arrange a section on each of those pages for me to offer my balancing comments then I can do without any pages outlining the anti-vaccination viewpoint, but vaccinators like Hog can't take any criticism which is why he deletes all of my work. john 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) john 09:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's a constellation of pages about vaccination that I think would be better of being compressed a little. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thsgrn (talk • contribs)
Delete. Can easily be merged with vaccine controversy, list of vaccine topics or just simply with User:Ombudsman. JFW | T@lk 14:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - encyclopedias have articles, and this is not an article. I honestly think the champions of vaccine criticism would better serve their cause by writing one or more clear, NPOV articles rather than trying to insert these long lists into every vaccine article. There's lots of debate on the talk pages, but it doesn't carry over to the article(s) at all - instead, there are lists upon lists, trying to make up in sheer volume what they lack in content. Give me well-reasoned arguments instead of hysterics. Your lists here are closer to hysterics.- ddlamb 09:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: some could be merged with vaccine controversy; why is there a subsection for "anti-vaccinators" and critics of vaccination? --CDN99 15:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Some vaccine critics aren't 100% anti-vaccination, eg Wakefield, not in public anyway, who was anti-MMR combination. john 17:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a list, and intended (as per User:Whaleto's comments above) as a POV fork. --Calton | Talk 07:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Superb references and useful research tool. -- JJay 21:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Use a category for this. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 21:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bunch of nonsense intended only to push POV. Soltak | Talk 18:24, 7 January 2006 (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.