Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas (Second nomination)

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. WjBscribe 06:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

George Vithoulkas

George Vithoulkas (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This was previously the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas which was speedily closed as a copyright violation. That AfD was a veritable puppet parade, so this one is running semi-protected.

The subject's work has been the subject of uncritical reviews in a hoemopathy journal (of unknown significance), but there is a dearth of independent review of this man and his work, and the book reviews indicate that this work is at the hard core pseudoscience end of homeopathy. The text is still pretty much the original lifted from his website, since he (or his webmasters) changed the copyright notice specifically so the article would not be deleted as a copyright violation. I can't find any evidence of mainstream coverage, certainly nothing outside of sources which are promoting homeopathy. I do not myself consider a review of a book by a journal committed to promoting the subject of the book to be independent under the meaning of the act, but even if we did this is a source for the book not the author, I think. Guy (Help!) 16:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Categorizing debate: B (Biographical). ◄Zahakiel► 17:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's a quote from Rogue Admin, Dave Souza, talking about the same journal and source you are refering to: "The critique article was added as a reference by the original author of the piece, and is hosted by a specialist homeopathic bookshop. It clearly gives an alternative viewpoint of the work of Vithoulkas, and as WP:NPOV requires, viewpoints should be shown: the credentials and position of the author indicate that he is well informed on the subject and his views are noteworthy. " So, 3 positive reviews, from the same source (bookshop and journal), and authors including MDs that work in the same hospital, are now "of unknown significance" ? Nice...Homeopathic 14:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Absolute keep Is this some kind of sick joke? It is completely absurd that this article is again being proposed for deletion given the amount of sourced information in the article and the amount of information that was posted in the last AFD. The guy has 100,000 hits on Google (and before anyone jumps in again and says "how do we know those hits are for "this" Vithoulkas", please do a random browse through those hits. You'll find that at least 98% (if not more) are for George Vithoulkas, the subject of this article). His books have been translated into twenty languages. His writings are considered fundamental to modern homeopathy and have been integrated into the main software applications used by thousands of homeopaths all over the world. You can find him cited many times in PubMed, the Who's Who directory(!), Google Scholar and virtually anywhere that homeopathy is discussed. People travel from all over the world to study with him or to receive treatment. He's the winner of the Alternative Nobel Prize and has been honored by various governments. Whether homeopathy is "pseudoscience" as User JzG claims above, is entirely irrelevant to the question of notability and to suggest that someone of his statue and fame (or notoriety if you please) is somehow not notable enough for Wikipedia is just preposterous. The guy has been famous for over 30 years. --Lee Hunter 16:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• No it is not a "sick joke" it is the result of a lengthy debate at the admin noticeboard and largely procedural as the previous debate was curtailed as a result of the previous deletion (which was, as Adam points out, perfectly proper, since the copyright terms at that time meant that it was indeed a copyright violation). Comments like "is this a sick joke" might apply if this had been subject to multiple debates with a keep consensus, but actually it had one partial debate ending in deletion. The short version of which is: watch your tongue. Guy (Help!) 18:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• A small sampling of the citations found through Amazon

Please note that the following are just a few of the books citing Vithoulkas that I found on Amazon. There are many more that discuss his ideas and most of these books refer to him in multiple spots.

• • Bioenergetic Medicines East and West: Acupuncture and Homeopathy by Manning & Vanrenen "... irritability, fear of new situations and fear of failure. George Vithoulkas, the reknowned Greek homeopath, ..."
  • Dr. Pitcairn's New Complete Guide to Natural Health for Dogs and Cats by Richard H. Pitcairn and Susan Hubble Pitcairn "... most suitable remedy. The Science of Homeopa- thy, by George Vithoulkas, is an important modern discussion of the principles involved and ..."
  • Relearning to See: Improve Your Eyesight -- Naturally! by Thomas R. Quackenbush " The reader is referred to George Vithoulkas' The Science of Homeopathy, ..."
  • Everybody's guide to homeopathic medicines by Stephen Cummings and Dana Ullman "... George Vithoulkas, a respected contemporary homeopath, has outlined the varying depths of ..."
  • Homeopathic Medicine At Home by Maesimund B. Panos (back matter) "... The Science of Homeopathy, a Modem Textbook. By G. Vithoulkas. New York: Grove Press, 1979. The most comprehensive and up-to-date book concerning homeopathic philosophy and methodology. A "must" for the ..."
  • Radical Healing: Integrating the World's Great Therapeutic Traditions to Create a New Transformative Medicine "... Recommended. The Science of Homeopathy, George Vithoulkas, Grove Press, New York, 1980. A major and influential attempt ..."
  • Homeopathy and Your Child: A Parent's Guide to Homeopathic Treatment from Infancy Through Adolescence by Lyle W. Morgan II "... of Similars-"let like be cured by like." According to George Vithoulkas, widely considered to be the greatest living homeopathic theorist, ..."
  • Inside Tai Chi: Hints, Tips, Training & Process for Students and Teachers by John Loupos "... George Vithoulkas, founder of the Homeopathic College in Athens, Greece and one of the world's leading ..."

I can continue this list if anyone's still in doubt but I think you get the idea. --Lee Hunter 19:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but none of those quotes hints at very much detail about him being in those books. That's the problem - if we're required to use only sources from the subject himself, because the other references to him are trivial or promotional, we don't have any reliable sources, one of the key requirements of writing an encyclopedic article. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Reliable sources"? Adam, these are published books. They are as reliable as it is possible to get. "none of those quotes hints at very much detail about him being in those books." Huh? What do you mean? We have him described as "a respected contemporary homeopath", "the greatest living homeopath", "one of the world's leading" etc This is such a strange interaction I can't quite get my head around it. WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED TO SEE? I have shown you that there are dozens of books published all over the world by a variety of publishers that describe him as THE central figure in modern homeopathy. There's even a bio of Vithoulkas in German that I didn't mention. I can no longer accept that you are discussing this matter in good faith. Every time I come up with a new overwhelming batch of information you turn around say "Is that it?". This is reaching some sort of new level of absurdity even for Wikipedia. --Lee Hunter 20:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

We need to see independent information about him we can use to write the article. What he says about himself isn't enough. Throw-away sentences about him in other books don't show we could write a balanced article on him. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Whooooooooaaaaaa doggggie!!!!!! Now you're way off the mark. This whole page has one purpose: to establish whether he's notable enough to be included in WP. The challenges of writing a balanced article can be addressed within the talk pages over time. If we can attempt balanced articles about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I think we can manage a decent article on Vithoulkas. By the way, here's another cite: Complete Idiot's Guide to Homeopathy by David W. Sollars "... instincts in our personal and business lives. Caution George Vithoulkas, a contemporary homeopathy practitioner in Greece, warns us that health depends on the ..." --Lee Hunter 20:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I've checked a couple of these cites. One sentence about him in a 500 page book isn't all that compelling evidence. Do any of them have more than that? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam, I'm not going to dignify that question with an answer. You're now obviously just trolling. --Lee Hunter 20:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please, or else you get blocked. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

...I'll take that as a no, then? Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete About the only source outside of pseudoscientific circles on this individual is the Right Livelihood Award, which is itself questionably notable. Skinwalker 17:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, whether or not someone is viewed by some people as "pseudoscientific" is completely irrelevant to notability. The question is "is he notable" not "is he a mainstream scientist". And since when did Google Scholar, PubMed, Google, Who's Who, MedLine etc become part of some pseudoscientific circle?--Lee Hunter 17:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are not sources, those are indexes of sources. Just because they index a journal doesn't mean that journal is now above reproach. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:53, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

"Above reproach"? May we ask, reproach by who? I think we can assume that the subscribers to the publication are satisfied that the publication is "above reproach". This is the first AFD I've encountered that gets into strange existential arguments about whether a publication that's indexed by PubMed is above or below reproach. Again you seem to be under the delusion that the purpose of an AFD is to determine whether someone is legitimate in the eyes of mainstream science. The question is notability (period) not mainstream respectability or something to that effect. --Lee Hunter 18:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's granted that he's considered bogus at large in mainstream science, but Lee is right: we're not here to talk about that, because mainstream science considers homeopathy to be bollocks. We're here to talk about whether he is notable. I see the assertion and acknowledge it, but I don't see much - only notability given is within the realms of homeopathy, and homeopathology is a pretty insular realm - so there could be perceptions of conflict of interest, no matter how remote. Can we get some more sources here that are verifiable? That'll certainly help. --Dennisthe2 18:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. My point was more along the lines of your suggestion about WP:COI, WP:RS and so on. I don't think we should reject pseudoscientific sources out of hand, but they need extra scrutiny in terms of objectivity, editorial oversight, and other necessary facets of verifiability. Cheers, Skinwalker 18:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
• Changing vote to weak keep per the added reference. Those satisfy me, for one. Thanks for changing my mind, guys. --Dennisthe2 18:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral Weak delete per MastCell - Changed my mind due to his argument. My original thoughts are below. Adam Cuerden ^talk 01:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC) On the other hand, we have been able to get something like an NPOV article out of it. Weak keep.

He's far more notable than most modern homeopaths, so if we're going to include modern homeopaths, it's pretty much down to him and Rajesh Shah, as far as I can see. Both seem to be the ones judged by homeopaths themselves as the best, and the ones put forth for awards recognising Homeopathy when they come available. However, they're at the top of a relatively marginal group, and so have less notability than leaders of other professions, such as scientists, and so on.

However, I've only been able to find two references to him outside of homeopathy itself: here and various pages here, showing him, as I said, being chosen to receive homeopathy-related awards. There's also a negative article about one of his books, which, while published in the British Homeopathic Journal, is apparently written by an anti-Homeopath. Indeed, one of his defenders was claiming that was a reason it shouldn't be used as a source!? Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well his field is homeopathy, so why are you looking for mentions of him in places where homeopathy is not discussed? The idea is ridiculous. Again, this is the strangest AFD I've ever seen. --Lee Hunter 18:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy is occassionally discussed in newspapers and such, after all. But George Vithoulkas himself doesn't seem to be. Maybe there's more in Greek newspapers? ...How do you spell Vithoulkas in Greek, anyway? Greek has no V. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What on earth are you going on about? Since when did the Wikipedia notability bar get raised so high that multiple books translated into 20 languages, citations in multiple journals, awards by governments, a listing in Who's Who, 100,000 Google hits, cites in Google Scholar and PubMed, reviews of books in his field and lord alone knows what else is not enough. What if I come up with a few newspaper articles? Are you going to ask "Well did he ever appear on Oprah? Oh he did? Then how about Jerry Springer?" I mean WP has articles on subway stops, high schools and university professors unknown except within a tiny esoteric circle. Here's a guy who has clearly influenced, for better or worse, the medical treatment of millions of people around the world and we're playing some game as if he's being confirmed for the Supreme Court or canonization by the Holy Roman Church. Sheesh. --Lee Hunter 18:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, only 729 unique Google hits. (Try scrolling through to page 73). EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The Pubmed, Google, and Google Scholar bits are just indexes - they reference anything they can. Surely every scientist who ever published research isn't notable enough for an encyclopedia. Any of the following would probably make him notable:

• Newspaper reports, in any major newspaper, detailing the awards and putting them in context. Why was he chosen? What does the award mean? (This is, of course, slightly dependant on the award's significance. An OBE isn't particularly notable, for instance - Any person in the higher ranks of a charity is likely to get one, and, while they deserve recognition for their work, this doesn't necessarily make them notable.
• A few articles about him in major newspapers, of reasonable length, and reasonably independant of him himself.
• A few criticisms of him by a reasonably notable anti-homeopathic people or organisations. If he's notable to attract their eye, he's probably notable, and POV problems cease.

Any of these would, I think, show notability. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Lee, the use of subway station articles as notability comparisons are non-sequiturs. What does a subway have to do with medicine? There's just no comparison. --Dennisthe2 19:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

My point is that Wikipedia includes articles on very obscure subjects. The standard for notability is generally the publication of a couple books that have been noted at least within the author's field. For musicians, you only have to be pretty well-known in your local area (representative of the local scene). Here's a person who has written many books some of which have been translated into twenty languages and they are acknowledged as standard references for his field (ie. they are incorporated into the two or three main software databases for homeopathy). Aside from all the other stuff (listing in Who's Who, the awards, etc) that ALONE would make him more notable than probably 50% of the bios in Wikipedia. What we have here is a strange new bar that's been set only for this article. --Lee Hunter 19:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Be that as it may, I've said my piece on this. Follow my advice, and if you can scare up the information, you'll certainly change our minds. For the refs below, see if they apply via WP:V - I'm not sure on those, so I will defer the call there to somebody else. --Dennisthe2 20:35, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral weak Keep - It's hard to judge to what extent he's notable, due to the lack of reliable third party sources. This problem means that the article clearly fails an essential requirement of WP:BLP, and instead draws almost entirely on self published sources which appear to be unduly self-serving. The critical book review from the British Homoeopathic Journal (now published as Homeopathy) suggested a possible third party source, but the additional links subsequently provided (also hosted by a homeopathic bookstore) to completely uncritical reviews suggest that the publication is largely promotional in nature as well as expressing views that are widely acknowledged as fringe. As has been shown above, the biography published on the Right Livelihood Award is not a third party source, but is simply a cut and paste of his official CV, and it is my understanding that Wikipedia is not in the business of hosting CVs. .. dave souza, talk 19:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to weak keep: Campbell is an independent source appearing to have sound credentials (see links added to article), and there is a published biography in German written by a journalist and one of Vithoulkas's former pupils. .. dave souza, talk 11:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Changed to keep - his book is recommended by the BHS which is a regulated body in the UK. dave souza, talk 09:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - per WP:ATT, WP:RS - neither of which I believe are met - and WP:N, which I don't think he meets either. No independant, mainstream coverage of him is given that is outside his branch of crankery: hence the "independent" bit of WP:N, which I don't think he meets. As to non-trivial independent coverage - not seeing any of that. As to the arguments to keep, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is patently invalid. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Books published by mainstream publishers are inherently reliable sources. I've shown that he has been cited (often explicitly calling him one of the leading experts in his field) in dozens, maybe hundreds of books. He has written books that have been published by mainstream publishers. Homeopathy is practised by millions of people around the world including thousands of medical doctors (many of whom traveled to Greece to be trained by Vithoulkas). There is absolutely no basis for the assertion that he is not notable. --Lee Hunter 20:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I thinkt he problem is that you're using the dictionary definition of notable, but the relevant one is Wikipedia:Notability (people) The references you're giving are single, throw-away sentences in large books, whereas the notability guidelines need non-trivial, independent references. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

But every single one of the books I cited (and most of the hundred+ that are available) is independent by any reasonable definition of the term. Your personal definition of independent means "not favourable to homeopathy" and this has no basis in Wikipedia:Notability (people). I defy you to show me anything in that guideline that would preclude even one of the books I cited. The notability guidelines, while they don't specifically talk about medicine, do give examples of notability being people who are leaders in their field (Vithoulkas meets this criteria), a credible independent biography (Vithoulkas meets this criteria), a large fan base (Vithoulkas meets this criteria), endorsements of notable products (Vithoulkas meets this criteria, maybe arguably if you don't think homeopathy is notable), wide name recognition (i.e. hits on Google), known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique (Vithoulkas certainly fits this criteria), has won significant critical attention (Vithoulkas meets this criteria). Now even ONE of those criteria would establish his notability, but Vithoulkas meets every possible angle you can come up with. No, he hasn't yet competed on American Idol, but otherwise, I can't see any area in which he fails to meet the requirements. Unless, of course, you believe that homeopathy is just rubbish and the tens of millions of people who practise it don't count. Which is, apparently, what you believe, so beyond this point words fail me. --Lee Hunter 23:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it means independent of him. We have some noin-trivial references that aren't indipendent, and some independent books, as you mention, that are trivial (with regards to him). Where is this supposed independant biography? Because you haven't yet mentioned one. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Straightforward delete. All sound and fury aside, it boils down to WP:BIO. Has the man "been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" (emphasis mine)? No. Without independent sources, we can't write a neutral, encyclopedic article about someone; witness the current state of the article as proof. Delete it. MastCell ^Talk 01:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I've provided a couple independent sources below, here's another one from one of the biggest Homeopathic sites. Or are all homeopathic bookstores and websites conspiring with the Forces of Darkness ?Homeopathic 15:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The sources you've provided are not "intellectually independent" of Vithoulkas; see WP:BIO. MastCell ^Talk 20:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• keep winner of Right Livelihood Award aka the "Alternative Nobel Prize" is notable. I support removal of any material without reliable sources. If that takes it down to a stub, then that's fine by me, but am convinced the case for notability is made. Pete.Hurd 01:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Who calls it the alternative Nobel prize? The Right Livelihood crowd? The alternative Nobel prize is the Ignobel prize anyway. Guy (Help!) 14:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• The tragic difference is that the Ig Nobel Prize is given by scientific skeptics who are humorously "honoring" (ridiculing) what they clearly label as pseudoscience, while the Right Livelihood prize is given to literally honor (in this case) pseudoscience, without recognizing it as such. So it is actually an anti-science prize, and thus the exact opposite of the Nobel prize. How tragic. The Nobel Prize rewards that which contributes to strengthening society, while the other rewards that which contributes to ignorance and superstition. It's not an honor to receive such a prize. At least one can laugh at getting the Ig Nobel prize. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• I really don't think the awardees of the Ig Nobels are scientific skeptics, they're scientists period, and not all that they award prizes to is pseudoscience (for example my PhD supervisor won in 2003 for "Chickens Prefer Beautiful Humans." perfectly solid science, but with obvious slapstick appeal). That the Right Livelihood has been called the "alternative nobel" by reliable sources back to at least the mid 1990s by quick google search. Pete.Hurd 04:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
• Well, be fair: I checked the list of winners of the Right Livelihood Award and most of them seem to be social and enironmental activists, which is fair enough, with a sprinkling of new age, mainly in the early awards. Vithoulkas seems to be the only alternative medicine proponent.

One wonders whether there was negative publicity about the Vithoulkas award, seeing they seem to have stuck to social activists ever since. If there was, that might make him notable. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:41, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep.. but I'm with Pete Hurd, remove any and all material without reliable sources. I recommend the same be done with Rajesh Shah. There's a fair bit of this article that's self referential. The same, incidentally applies to Rajesh Shah. As an aside I dont think Wikipedia should be used to promote homeopathy, which is -- in my opinion -- nonsense, but this has little to do with this article. This person does meet the criteria for inclusion by winning the Right Livelihood Award. Pruning this article of the unreferenced and questionable material is going to leave a very short stub - but such is life. MidgleyDJ 08:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I should add I'm happy to support delete if winning this prize is not considered a criteron for notability. MidgleyDJ 20:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Absolute Keep This is the biography of George Vithoulkas at a independent health shop Biography. And another comment about his contribution from another independent source, much shorter though. Adam and his lot are clearly biased.14:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Homeopathic 14:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

And another independent source here, with a list of Eminent Homeopaths. Homeopathic 15:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let alone the fact you've been ignoring the positive reviews from the British Homoeopathic Journal 123 while you have embraced the one negative critique you found. The list of positive reviews and comments is endless...Homeopathic 15:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel it prudent to advise you that your accusation of bias can be construed as a personal attack. --Dennisthe2 18:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This author, practitioner, and professor is one of the most prominent homeopaths in the world today. Saying he doesn't deserve a bio on Wikipedia is essentially saying that Wikipedia should not cover the topic of homeopathy. Also please see the criteria for notability in Wikipedia:Notability (people)#special cases. This case meets the criteria adequately for a keep, see "creative professionals: scientists, academics, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals" in that section. The criteria are here:

• The person has received notable awards or honors--YES, see Right Livelihood Award
• The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors--YES, see his bio here
• The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique--NO
• The person has created a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews--his major works are [1] and [2]. They are widely used in the homeopathic community.

Given, all this, I don't really see what the problem is here. Abridged 14:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per MastCell. I have yet to see any reliable sources. -- Ben 15:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

In 1986 BBC made a film about Homeopathy and George Vithoulkas. 1 2.Homeopathic 17:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

"Greek Homeopath to receive Gold Medal in Hungary" Macedonian Press Agency. And ofourse in the video mentioned above, you can watch parts of the award ceremony.Homeopathic 18:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

WARNING: That video of the acceptance speech has a very questionable opening, in which either a clip form four or more years earlier when Birgitta Dahl was Speaker is cut in (presumably because they like what she says), or someone who is not the Speaker is labelled as the speaker. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

This is pathetic. Birgitta Dahl was the speaker of the Riksdag from 1994 to 2002. Vithoulkas received the award in 1996. The opening video CLEARLY STATES THAT! Where is the problem ??? What is wrong with you ADAM, STOP MISINFORMING THE USERS AT LAST. Homeopathic 19:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathic, do not make personal attacks. --Dennisthe2 20:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

So the fact he is lying and misinforming users worldwide doesnt matter, and what does is me saying he is lying (and i'm prooving it) ? Please, check the video and the Birgitta Dahl page to see the truth.Homeopathic 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll let an admin deal with this. --Dennisthe2 20:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Ach, hell. keep flipping 2006 and 1996. Sorry. You might have said that the first time I made that mistake, you know, instead of just complaining about me denying the video, not mentioning my dates were off. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'sorry'. That's all that you have to say ? You didnt even bother to remove the warning in bold, after admiting your mistake. And now it's my fault for you blaming the video and everything else ? This has to be a joke... You've disregarded all evidence and links we've provided as proof, and placed under AfD Vithoulkas' page, and all you have to say is 'sorry'. The AfD should end here now.Homeopathic 20:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

You do realise that I did not start this AfD, right? Still, I'll strike my comment. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes i've noticed that, but it's you that started this whole issue in the first place, and have caused so much trouble. And you are insisting on the subject. But you have misjudged the man, and it is unfair.Homeopathic 21:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's step back - we're not judging the man; that's not what this forum is about. We're judging whether there are enough independent sources about him that we can build a reasonable, neutral Wikipedia article. It's not personal; please don't personalize it unecessarily. MastCell ^Talk 21:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per MastCell. Same reasoning. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 16:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Give it a chance. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 19:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You can find loads of references to George Vithoulkas at NCBI, Science Direct, British Library Direct. All you have to do is type the name.Homeopathic 19:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Another independent source, The Hellenic (ie GREEK) Homeopathic Medical Association (HHMS), consisting only of MDs, has a page dedicated to George Vithoulkas.Homeopathic 20:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

The fact that someone can be looked up on PubMed doesn't de facto make them notable; else I (and thousands of others) would have our own articles as well. Please look at WP:BIO; the sources you've mentioned are not "intellectually independent" of Vithoulkas. Also, please note that we're not judging his worth as a person, or the value of his life's work; we're making a very narrow determination about whether enough independent sources exist to create a decent Wikipedia article. Please don't take things so personally. MastCell ^Talk 20:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that it is not easy to find online verification for all of the awards Vithoulkas has received, but that is different from twisting his views or AfD the page. Even one page, the Right Livelihood Award link, should be enough as a reference. The video is there too. He is a competent Homeopath, who has dedicated his life to Homeopathy, and received many awards for that.

I also understand that the main problem is not Vithoulkas, but Homeopathy. It is very difficult for people to accept the fact that ultradiluted and succussed substances have biological effects. And when somebody believes homeopathy is a quack, he just cant accept the fact a Homeopath has received such recognition worldwide.Homeopathic 21:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's worth anything to you, I'm not one to believe homeopathy is quackery. I've seen it work, and in fact have used it from time to time. Like anything medical, you get yer quacks, but...well, yeah. --Dennisthe2 21:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per MastCell (changing to keep - see below) - this is a WP:BIO issue. The single reference which appears to fulfill the primary criterion ("...been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.") is the Right Livelihood site. Unless more non-trivial sources can be found, I don't think there is enough background material for a bio. -- MarcoTolo 21:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but have you noticed the BBC documentary, the 'Homeopath of the Millenium Award' (by the Indian Minister of Health - can be seen in the Awards Video), the Hungarian Gold Medal (linked to the greek newspaper), the Bio pages at the specialized bookstores, etc, and NONE "are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject" ? Homeopathic 21:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something.... I cannot seem to find the BBC link or the Hungarian Gold Medal link you mention. If you could point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it. -- MarcoTolo 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's in a previous post, but here they are again: :in 1986 BBC made a film about Homeopathy and George Vithoulkas. 1 2. And "Greek Homeopath to receive Gold Medal in Hungary" Macedonian Press Agency (again, can be seen in Google Video).Homeopathic 21:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something.... I cannot seem to find the BBC link or the Hungarian Gold Medal link you mention. If you could point me in the right direction, I'd appreciate it. -- MarcoTolo 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Right. So we have a BBC documentary that google only shows mention of on that site [http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-GB%3Aofficial&hs=HdU&q=The+HEALING+ARTS%3A+GEORGE+VITHOULKAS+-+HOMEOPATH+BBC&btnG=Search&meta= a Hungarian award, the video showing it being handed to him, with a few other people present, a little clapping, him shaking hands, then returning to his place. A clip of a few people in professorial gear standing about, purporting to be Vithoulkas getting a professorship. The video claims the award by the Indian Ministry of Health was for him as Homeopath of the Millenium. This is NEVER SAID in the video clip. Why on earth would that be left out if it was said, given the video was assembled by Vithoulkas according to the first splash page. The BBC documentary is mentioned in the last few seconds, of the google video, after which it abruptly ends.

I'm sorry, if anything, this makes me less convinced. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing would convince you Adam...

MarcoTolo, Vithoulkas was awarded the Indian 'Gold Medal' as Homeopath of the Millenium for his contribution to Classical Homeopathy. This video on Google is a shorter version of the original one, in which it is stated clearly. Same goes for the BBC documentary (is not included in this specific video, besides the final note) - it is an old one (1986) and it's a miracle i even found that reference. As far as the Hungarian award is concerned, that is in Hungarian, which would not make much sense for english-speaking users - same goes for the award in Kiev, the speech is in Russian. The purpose of this short video was to include the highlights of the awards. Now, BEFORE someone doubts again what i'm saying, i'll be more than happy to contact the webmaster of Vithoulkas.com and ask him to upload the FULL video (which i have too, containing the BBC doc, the Indian, Hungarian, Kiev ceremonies). If some extra time for the AfD is given (48 hours at least), i can prove this is the truth (if there's any point in it).Homeopathic 22:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. Seems about borderline, based on the coverage and above commentary. - Denny 23:57, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep, just like the above article. We are not called upon to decide the merits of homeopathy, We just present what they say for themselves. He is considered notable among his fellows, so there is an article about him and his views fairly presented. Nobody could possibly mistake them for ordinary medicine. If the article makes advertising type claims, or tried to expound the theory in excessive detail, that's for the talk page. I think the article is sober enough. Every believer and ever disbeliever should equally want the views expressed. I am among the total disbelievers, and to let the views be presented is the strongest and most effective, and fairest criticism.

One of the comments above amounted to saying that homeopathic sources are inherently not reliable. If we were trying to prove the truth of the matter, perhaps. If we were qualified to judge the science, most decidedly. As a source for what homeopathy say, and how any particular homeopath is regarded, of course they are. I can not see how anyone without bias would regard this as biased in favor of the subject. Keeping this is NPOV. DGG

• Delete. There's a lot of discussion to parse here and it's not especially easy. The problem that we seem to have here is the reliability of the sources. As stated in WP:ATT, we rely on secondary sources to determine notability - primary sources are only acceptable once secondary sources have satisfied that problem. Since it appears the sources being used to support this article are of a pro-homeopathy bent, I would say that qualifies them as primary sources - documents or poeple close to the situation. Homeopaths writing about homeopaths is not a reliable, secondary source. Arkyan • ^(talk) 18:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

So a winner of this award who is highly respected by his peers as a leader in his particilar field is not notable enough to have a bio page in Wikipedia? Please consider reading the guidelines Wikipedia:Notability (people)#special cases and reconsider. This guy is a major player in homeopathy today. When you exclude him from the encyclopedia, what you are saying is that the encyclopedia should not cover contemporary homeopathy. Abridged 18:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Conversely, though, a lack of secondary sources, while definitely a reason to delete, is also a reason to put a {{cleanup}} tag on the article, or something similar. Personally, I'd rather give this article a chance to clean up. It doesn't at this time meet the standards (thus my change to week keep above), but it's a start, and you gotta start somewhere. --Dennisthe2 20:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at it recently? It is not that bad. Abridged 20:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

In the past few minutes? =^_^= Be mindful, I have gone to the keep side. See above. --Dennisthe2 21:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Changing !vote to weak keep based on the award. I somehow missed that in my previous reading of this article/debate. Like I mentioned there is a lot to parse through! Anyway, while that seems to marginally satisfy WP:ATT my original statement that secondary sources are paramount to an article remains, and this article will need a lot of cleanup in that regard. Arkyan • ^(talk) 22:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

• Background information There are literally hundreds of books on homeopathy that cite Vithoulkas. I've provided a tiny sample earlier in this page. This was met with, what I consider, the entirely fatuous argument that they don't count because they are written by people who favor homeopathy. This seems absurd and kafkaesque (since when did we need the confirmation of people outside of one's field to confirm whether you might be notable). Remember we're only trying to determine whether he's well-known in his field not whether he's right or whether he's the most famous person who ever lived. In any case, there was an insistence, particularly by Cuerdon, that there be some non-homeopathic publications cited to prove his notability. Here are two which I think should suffice. He is cited in A New World Order by Paul Ekins [3] a book that was reviewed favourably by the Times Higher Educational Supplement, New Statesman and Society and Third World Quarterly. It's a book about military statistics. Why he talks about Vithoulkas I don't know but he does. We also have the Handbook of Complementary and Alternative Therapies in Mental Health by Scott Shannon, a book that received a glowing reviefrom the International Review of Psychiatry, from Andrew Weil, M.D and others. The author describes Vithoulkas as a "contemporary master of homeopathy". One of the specific indicators for notability is the existence of an independent biography. I draw your attention to Georgos Vithoulkas Der Meister-Homöopath Biographie und Fälle published by Random House (Germany) [4]. So now we have a person who has many publications (published by major publishing houses), has several books translated into twenty languages, is cited in hundreds of books in many languages also published by mainstream publishers, has an independent biography published by a major publishing house, is cited in medical journals, is almost universally acknowledged as the leading person in his field, has a listing in Who's Who, has received a major international award, has been honored by several governments and on and on. How can there be the slightest doubt of his notability? --Lee Hunter 01:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, seems clearly notable. Suspicion about homeopathy is probably making people unreasonably skeptical about the subject's notability. Everyking 15:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keepbased on notability, if nothing else the controversy makes him notable. WP doesn't require biomedical research to be reveiwed by cosmologists or literary critics or homeopaths. Homeopathy and GV may be nonsense (is, in my opinion), but the same argument could be made for endless people and ideas. Anyone who has written, had published, and sold many books on any topic is notable. Wrong maybe, but still notable. Cut it back to whatever is wrangled out as sourcable on the articles talk page. --killing sparrows 15:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• THE VIDEO PROOF

Here is the full video on Google Video with the documentaries, ceremonies and the awards (1 hour 07 min):

5:40 - 16:36 BBC Documentary (1986) 1 2

16:50 - 21:52 GermanTV documentary (this has been translated i guess)

21:53 - Speech at the Council of Europe

23:57 - 30:20 DW film, by Daniela David (1998) German PDF info

31:00 - 40:26 Indian "Gold Medal" by the Minister of Health

40:27 - 55:59 Kiev Medical Academy (in Russian)

56:00 - end: Hungarian Gold Medal Macedonian Press AgencyHomeopathic 17:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

• Changing !vote to keep per provided BBC documentary ref. The "consolidated" format of the ref is a little strange, but I think this tips the balance of WP:RS for me. -- MarcoTolo 17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish i could find a better ref, but the film is old. At least the link proves a film was made by the BBC and was aired on 25/07/1986.Homeopathic 17:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• What I can say about this article is that I checked its reference to Papyrus-Larousse-Britannica, because I was indeed suspicious after the long discussion in WP:ANI. Well, the reference is absolutely accurate! There is a long article about him in the encyclopedia, where he is called one of the most important personalities in his domain. And Papyrus is regarded as the most prestigious encyclopedia in Greece. My conclusion is that, at least in Greece, he is important enough to deserve a full page of biography in the country's most prestigious encyclopedia. And there are references in this article, indicating that in his domain he has made his presence noticeable even outside Greek fronteers. Therefore, after that, I am obliged to vote for keep, asking for the article to be improved.--Yannismarou 17:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

"at least in Greece" ??? The above are international awards and films.Homeopathic 17:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ending the AfD (second nomination)

I think it's high time this AfD ended here. A lot of reliable sources have been posted, from inside and outside the Homeopathic community, that prove George Vithoulkas is a world-wide recognized Homeopath.Homeopathic 05:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The AfD will be closed, when it is time to Homeopathic. There are adm watching it, and ready to close it, when it is the appropriate time, so do not hurry without reason.--Yannismarou 19:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

For Dave Souza

Content refactored per Harmonious editing club guidelines and moved to Talk:George Vithoulkas#George Vithoulkas --- opinions on the role of conventional medicine in patient care (moved from AFD talk page). Please continue the discussion there.

(note to Miri: This is a page for discussing whether or not a biographical page on George Vithoulkas is acceptable content for the encyclopedia. This topic you are raising is more relevant to the George Vithoulkas bioraphical page itself, so I'm going to copy the discussion to the talk page of that biographical article. If you haven't voted to "keep" or "delete" you should do so above. To discuss the article content, go here; to edit the article itself go here). Abridged 12:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

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.