Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johanna Budwig - Wikipedia


Article Images
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 KEEP Sufficient consensus that reliable sources exist and that this biography should be retained in WP. Article certainly can be improved and expanded with more sourcing. Mike Cline (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johanna Budwig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:IRS Article has failed to link to reliable sources. After search, no rs exist for subject. WP:N subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twiga Kali (talk • contribs) [Twiga Kali #1]

Keep: Scientific papers written by Budwig are all in the PubMed database, a reliable source. Equally, the evidence that she wrote many books, translated into into at least two other languages is reliable. There are Wikipedia articles about Budwig in five other languages (German, French, Spanish, Italian and Hungarian), which suggests a notability. (The proposer has, on at least one occasion tried to delete the inter-wiki links to these other articles.) A simple Google search on "Budwig diet" shows that Budwig still has many followers and proponents, however misguided they may or may not be. It would be remiss for the English wikipedia not have an article on her. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [Twiga Kali #2]: To respond to your points:

Being in PubMed is not a sufficient sign of notability (see WP:NJournals). There are hundreds of thousands of authors who have written papers in pub med who do not meet notability criteria. These publications do not appear to be recognised insofar as they have not gained notable, objective independent attention.
Writing books is again not necessarily noteworthy (WP:BK). What would make these books notable is if people have written non-trivial, reliable and independent works focussing on her books "without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." We have failed to find such material. For inclusion as an academic, Budwig would have to meet WP:ACADEMIC. She does not.
That other articles in other language versions of Wikipedia exist does not imply notability or authority. These articles appear to suffer from the same problems and should be candidates for deletion as well.
Your argument amounts to "everyone is out of step except me". The English, German, French, Spanish, Italian and Hungarian editors have all independently arrived at the conclusion that Budwig merits an article. Totalling them all up, there must be dozens, scores of such editors. Given your editing history is almost exclusively deleting other people's contributions to the English Budwig article, a more balanced view is that Twiga has a bee in his bonnet about Budwig and this proposal to delete the whole article is just more of the same. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My arguments stand on its own merits. Either we can find good rs and establish notability or we cannot. Wikipedia is not a popularity contest and the action of other editors on other language editions must stand on their own merit. There is nothing to stop you using other editions to find good rs. Having checked, the other editions look in an even worse state than the English edition. Relying on them to bolster your argument may well be self-defeating. I also suggest you do not start down an ad hom defense of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twiga Kali (talk • contribs) 16:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Budwig may well have many followers, but web sites you suggest we search for are advertising various pseudo-medical services based on fringe theories. Wikipedia is not the place to be promoting products and services.

Notability depends on finding appropriate sources - significant independent coverage or recognition - independent of business interests or people connected to the topic matter. I first requested a search for such material over a year ago. None has been forthcoming. Twiga Kali (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [Rod 57 #1]:Clearly notable from the large number of references on WWW which do not seem to be promoting the diet commercially. Although her theories are not accepted (and seem wrong to me), a NPOV article in WP seems well justified, and should not be viewed as promoting the diet/protocol. WP should not be attempting to suppress descriptions of theories just because they are not orthodox. As with Hoxsey therapy the ACS has docs mentioning the Budwig diet on their website : [1] Rod57 (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is clearly notable then it should be possible to create a list of suitable sources for the article. If you believe this to be true then please create a source list from which this article can be constructed.
The only source you mention is the ACS page which has a brief mention. It is not a reliable source as it claims Budwig "discovered essential fatty acids" in the 1950. This is clearly not true as the term was being used in the 1930s. Furthermore, none of the four papers listed makes any such claim either - which would be expected if Budwig was a notable academic and discoverer of such important dietary components. It would appear to be a spurious claim promoted by those selling pseudo-medical cancer diets based around her cookbook recipes.
There is no attempt to suppress any unorthodox theory here. The problem is that there is no reliable source that discuses her theories. Twiga Kali (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Both the ACS pages [2] [3] look like reliable sources. The term EFA may have been used in the 30s so the omega-3 article seems to be saying that JB discovered one or more additional EFAs (not the first or all EFAs). Rod57 (talk) 00:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid we can only go on what the source says and not what you wish it had said, and in that case, the source is not reliable as it makes a claim for Budwig which is not true. The ACS pages give no references to these statements and indeed offer no references from Budwig or about Budwig. She is obviously a very minor character and not notable. At best you might like to include some discussion of her on the article on Flaxseed, but I think you will still suffer from lack of rs. Twiga Kali (talk) 09:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What the Omega-3 source says seems ambiguous ([all] EFA, vs [some] EFA). Only one of the possible meanings might be untrue and does not make this and all other ACS sources unreliable. Rod57 (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are rather stretching things to claim other meanings. In the context of Omega-3 (which the ACS is discussing) the claim is simply untrue. If the claim were true, we would expect to be able to find primary sources to verify this. None of Budwig's papers are primary sources that substantiate this claim and show the ACS page to be a suitable rs.
Let's be straight. Reviewing the evidence, Budwig could at best be described as being a writer of recipe books that made unsubstantiated claims about the cancer healing properties of her recipes. But even to say this would be synthesis and OR. And even if the ACS source was correct (which it is not) it hardly counts as a substantial, "non-trivial, reliable and independent work" that would lead us to believe the subject was notable. You are barking up the wrong alley on this one. Twiga Kali (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [Rod 57 #2]: (me again, New argument) - She seems to meet criteria 7 of Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) in that she is an academic (fat/oil chemist) and she (eg by her many books and interviews) has influenced the field of anti-cancer diets as is clear from the many such websites that mention her. Rod57 (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [Twiga Kali #3]: before you can make the claim that she is an academic you need to establish that she is. With the risk of repeating myself hoarse, you need to find reliable sources that establish the notability of JB and that she was an academic. Such sources would confirm basic facts such as what qualifications she gained and what institutions/universities she worked in. I can see no evidence that JB was an academic. She clearly has not influenced the medical world of cancer diets as there are no citations to her work and no discussions of her impact on the thinking of cancer and diet. The evidence we have is consistent with her being the writer of a few non-notable cookbooks and having some crankish views on cancer - this is not notable. Twiga Kali (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"In the 1950s, a German scientist named Johanna Budwig, PhD, discovered essential fatty acids and developed a diet that she said would fight cancer. Dr. Budwig claimed that many of her patients experienced tumor reduction within 3 months, and she stated that some experienced even more dramatic results. Dr. Budwig has reportedly used omega-3 fatty acids in combination with other nutrients to treat thousands of people with cancer and other diseases." from American Cancer Society Omega-3 Fatty Acids Despite its neutral tone, this is a reference that Twiga Kali keeps on deleting from the article on the ground that the American Cancer Society doesn't know what it's talking about. Twiga Kali has a long history of deleting material he doesn't like such as this series of edits where he deleted the papers that Budwig had written (found in the PubMed database), the books that Budwig had written, and all external links. His proposal to delete the whole article is just in the same spirit. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the source makes assertions that are not true about Budwig. There is no evidence "discovered essential fatty acids" in the 1950s. Indeed, such dietary components were discovered in the 1930s. This makes the limited material in this article unreliable. Given that the intention here is to create an encyclopedic article about Budwig (if that is possible) then hanging the entire article on this one minor and unreliable source would not be appropriate. Nunquam Dormio - I am sure from your experience with Wikipedia what the requirements are for sources and this page falls well short. Please do not add it again. Twiga Kali (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note also in the above edit, Twiga Kali added this sentence "She died of cancer in 2003." without any reference. As Twiga Kali seems to be setting high standards for references, I would be interested to know what his reference for this assertion was. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you well know, I trimmed this article to a stub as it was completely unsourced and requested editors to find appropriate material upon which to build an article (if indeed that was possible). That has not proven to be so. Indeed, all statements about Budwig are unverifiable and that is one of the reasons for the deletion request. (The other being lack of notability). Once again, Numquam, it would be more constructive if you felt able to engage in this process rather than imputing my motives, attacking me and failing to engage in meaningful discussion about the limited material we have here. Twiga Kali (talk) 09:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your own mind, you obviously thought that writing "She died of cancer in 2003." was a witty ending to an article about a person who devised a supposed anti-cancer diet. However, as you ostensibly demand high standards of referencing, it is entirely legitimate to ask you what source or reference you used to make the statement that "she died of cancer". If you cannot, a dispassionate observer might think this totally undermines your credibility. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I usually find that people who attack the person do so because they cannot address the argument. The points of argument are straightforward here and it is about time you addressed them rather than resorting to obstructive reverts and ad hom attacks. Please do so. Twiga Kali (talk) 14:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your motives are completely pertinent to your desire to have this article deleted. On 22 October 2009, with this edit here, you added the text "She died of cancer in 2003.". Presumably, you did this either as some sort of attempt at discrediting Budwig and her diet or some sort of attempt at humour. You did not provide a reference for your assertion then and have not done so since. Unless you do so, people will presume that you deliberately added a false statement to serve some personal 'agenda'. Once again, I ask you to provide a reference for this edit. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 14:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would appear you are trying to create a side-show to the substantive point. There is not point discussing an edit that is long gone (rightly) and we would both agree should not be there. We should be discussing the current content. Despite repeated requests to explain why you think you can add links to commercial and unreliable sources in order to support this article you have not done so. Further reverts without substantiating the edits will strongly imply that you are not acting in good faith here. I am quite clear about what sort of substantiation is required - nothing unusual, just normal WP rules. I strongly urge you to show the good faith required in discussing the content and refrain from personal attacks. WP:FOC I believe I have shown plenty of patience in allowing you to resume discussion content. Further undiscussed matters of content may well lead to dispute resolution processes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twiga Kali (talk • contribs) 14:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree it was vandalism and that you should be treated as a vandal? Nunquam Dormio (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can only conclude that you are being deliberately provocative now. My edit history will stand on its merit. All I have ever done is try to either a) improve this article and, after failing to find sources, b) stub it and finally ask for deletion as the subject is clearly non notable. I am bemused by your actions where you clearly at every stage wish to prevent any article improvement and instead stoop to attack other editors. I am afraid I cannot assume good faith on your part anymore. Please turn around from this course of action and address content. My character is not the subject of this article.Twiga Kali (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You deliberately vandalised the article on 22 October 2009 (I assume you're not denying it), and nearly all your Wikipedia edits have been deleting chunks out of the Budwig article. Your proposal to delete the entire article should be seen in that context. You reap what you sow. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd. If I am at fault of anything it was naivity in early editing. But once again, my character is not the topic of this article and you refuse to engage in content.
Let me ask you a direct question: Do you believe this article meets WP standards for sources and notability? If so, on what basis? If not, what do you propose doing about it?Twiga Kali (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Deleting this article would seem counterproductive, and counter to the purpose of Wikipedia, which exists to inform its readers, not only to limit topics via technical criterion as interpreted by some editors.

Johanna Budwig is a notable person, regardless of her academic or scientific achievements, or any lack thereof; or whether she was an academic, or not; or whether her notability was major or minor; or whether her program is orthodox medicine, or not. Thus, she deserves an entry in Wikipedia. Deleting or keeping an article depends on its notability, not only academic or scientific value.

Most celebrities such as actors, musicians, and show business entertainers have no academic or scientific credentials, and yet they are persons of note, about whom some other persons wish to know.

Johanna Budwig may be viewed as a chemist, or maybe as an academic, or maybe as an alternative health practitioner, or maybe something else. But clearly, she has some degree or kind of notability.

Many years ago, before the Internet grew popular, occasional references to the Budwig diet appeared in the paper-based alternative health literature. I vaguely recall seeing some of these. I first seriously read of the Budwig diet in the late 1990s, I think, on the Internet. I experimented with the diet for a week or two, but my dairy allergies made it unworkable for me.

Had Wikipedia existed back then, or were I studying the issue now, and if a Budwig article existed on Wikipedia, I could simply look up "Budwig" and find information on her and her diet. Deleting the article denies this simple course of action for the future, for everyone.

Please, let us avoid mean-spirited unpleasantness and negativity. Instead, let us use common sense, good manners, and be cooperative, helpful, and charitable. Good luck. Jerryobject (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with you, but the article needs to be accurate, substantive and well referenced. Despite a long period of requesting reliable sources to build the article, none appear. We cannot build an informative article based on the wild claims made about her online. We can find sources that claim she is a pharmacist, a chemist, a physicist, a cook (which?) etc with Nobel Prize nominations (a common quack claim), she discovered EFAs (not true), she has had successful cancer cures (sources?) etc. We need to know what we can believe. Find those sources and we are away and a good article will ensue. But - and this is a big but - we do not want Wikipedia to give an imprimatur to a subject that does not deserve it - especially when life or death issues are at stake - such as cures for cancer. A misleading article could quite literally kill. No sources - No notabilty - no article - it ought to be that simple. Twiga Kali (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable.

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

Looking at the sources above, there's a wealth of evidence that she is mentioned on web pages, news, books and scholar. Her theories may have little currency today, but Wikipedia should discuss her and them, in the same way as it does for Horace Fletcher. Jonathan Luckett (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Fletcher has scholarly articles written about him and hence notability can be established. This is not true for Budwig. Her theories may not have currency now, but there is no evidence that they ever had. Notability and reliable sources need to be established. The 'wealth' of evidence is all to unsourced, unreliable quack web sites. Better things are required. Twiga Kali (talk) 16:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please list those articles that establish notability and can act as rs for this article. No number of poor sources can make a good wikipedia article. Twiga Kali (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' Sufficiently notable in her time of activity. WP covers non-current subjects equally with current ones. Good sources. DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat frustrating to see you talk of 'good sources' when we have not been able to find any. Can you list sources you consider adequate to establish notability and to base the article upon? Twiga Kali (talk) 18:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the vote statistics (AfD statistics) don't reflect the text in this discussion. How does one 'vote' ? Rod57 (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep or Expand - Notable, enough references and external links, she is obviously real. Though it could use some expanding in order for it to be kept. If she is so notable, we (Wikipedia family) should expand it since there is sufficent number of references and there is a lot of Google hits on her. Whenaxis (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2010 (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.