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 keep. Ifnord 20:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert S. Mendelsohn[edit]

This is not a useful page about an interesting person. The authors are mainly noted for efforts to present poorly reasoned attacks on vaccination in a wide and inappropriate variety of articles. The Quackwatch commentary linked from the page is informative.--Midgley 01:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Change my vote to Keep. He appears to have been a notable critic upon further research, but the article needs to be greatly expanded, especially regarding his criticisms. Liamdaly620 08:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep: Just another dubious attempt at suppression, and clearly at odds with the Wiki's policies on articles regarding published authors. The quackpot site epitomizes the undercurrents of abysmal attacks on informed consent prevalent in Western medicine. This AfD appears to reveal a degree of contempt towards informed medical debate, a sentiment evidently embraced unabashedly by those editors who have proposed, in recent months, the several AfDs on articles about critics of medical orthodoxy. Ombudsman 02:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you stick to the subject instead of trying to uncover one of your "conspiracies"? You have not given any reason why this page should be kept! JFW | T@lk 08:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Note above 'keep' vote was by a POV-pusher and is POV in itself. This person is not notable. Tokakeke 02:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep at least it's not a vanity article (quite the opposite in fact). Ruby 03:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Anyone who was the author of several books, past president of the National Health Federation, chairman of Illinois' Medical Licensing Committee, well-known conference/TV/radio speaker, etc should certainly have a Wikipedia article, no matter how bogus his ideas were. If you doubt his notability, just do a Google search for "Robert S Mendelsohn" - over 10,000 results, nearly all of them about the person in question. Him being considered a "quack" does not make an article about him any less interesting or encyclopedic. - AdelaMae ^{(talk - contribs)} 04:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Multiple issues here about Mendelsohn's credibility, credentials, and whether he was responsible & authoritative, but notable he is. His name gets 11,500 Google hits and he's the author of multiple published books. I think we should keep the page at least as a guide to the debate. --Lockley 05:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Every quack needs to have written a couple of books to achieve sufficient notoriety. No specific indication that this man has made an impact within or outside the alternative medicine or criticism of medicine community. JFW | T@lk 08:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per AdelaMay. The Dr. might or might not be bonkers, but is borderline notable just for publications and chair/president of this and that. The controversy around him tips him into the clearly notable category, IMHO. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 11:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep i can't say it any better, so i'll just iterate: Anyone who was the author of several books, past president of the National Health Federation, chairman of Illinois' Medical Licensing Committee, well-known conference/TV/radio speaker, etc should certainly have a Wikipedia article, no matter how bogus his ideas were. If you doubt his notability, just do a Google search for "Robert S Mendelsohn" - over 10,000 results, nearly all of them about the person in question. Him being considered a "quack" does not make an article about him any less interesting or encyclopedic. --jfg284 ^{you were saying?} 13:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per AndelaMae. --Terence Ong 15:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Astrokey44|talk 15:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Due to the fact that the google hits exceed 10,000, he has authored several books and has other various credentials; this decision should not even spark a contention. -- Salluste|talk 15:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC-5)
• Comment: Looking at the first couple of pages of Google hits, he is mentioned quite a lot (perhaps because there are few MDs who provide similar quotes) but there isn't much substance to the actual mentions. Some of what there is is rather odd - a claim that Aspirin alters blood clotting factors for instance - that would be Warfarin, Aspirin alters platelet adhesion - and reduces vitamin C on a "nutritional" site.

I'm not American, and it is hard to judge what the National Health Federation is about. Is it more like the BMA than the National Front, to use an English example?

if kept, this article needs to be written, and shuold be written about the man, rather to multiply copies of ideas already covering elsewhere.Midgley 15:57, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep he was the most notable anti-vaccine medical man of the last century, and allopathic critic. Very obvious suppression of that as we can see every day here for vaccine critics-- eg Midgleys other attempts over the last day or so: Beddow Bayly, Viera Scheibner, Charles Creighton. Lily Loat (deleted), and attempted deletions by other allopaths like CDN 99--Charles Pearce, Neil Miller, Martin Walker for vaccine critics etc. This is what they want to suppress [^{[deprecated source?]} Quackwatch is a well known pharma shill. Midgley is an allopath/vaccinator, bit obvious I would have thought. The wonder is how they can get away with it under everyones noses. Not to mention the deletion of links and text by them [1]. john 20:22, 27 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.