Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Campbell

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. — CharlotteWebb 01:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthony Campbell

A stub about a physician. The article provides no reason to think he's notable in any way (other than having once expressed an opinion). Lee Hunter 15:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: nn, bordering on speedy. David Mestel^(Talk) 15:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

  Keep. Took the article as definitive. Clearly a mistake. David Mestel^(Talk) 19:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep Article was started 4 hours ago. And the nominator admits this is a WP:POINT violation here. While it doesn't have much yet, there seems to be plenty of material on him we can use, as a simple google search for "Anthony Campbell homeopathy" will show. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The nominator admits no such thing! Yes please do a Google search. There's nothing more than a few thousand hits on Campbell. He has a few obscure pop medicine publications, some of them electronic, some of them not much more substantial than pamphlets. As far as I can tell, he's virtually unknown within his field and completely unknown outside of it. He doesn't seem to be cited by anyone as far as I can determine. The very definition of a minor figure in alternative healthcare. If anyone is curious about how WP is being gamed by a small group that is trying to remove balanced articles that show homeopathy in a neutral light and replace them with articles about homeopathy's critics (eg. Anthony Campbell) they should absolutely read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas (Second nomination). Compare the information provided to support Vithoulkas' inclusion in WP and compare it with the Campbell. Notice that it's the same people voting to get rid of one and add the other. Nominating Campbell for deletion has nothing to do with making a point, anyone can see in two minutes on Google that he is, at best, a minor figure. --Lee Hunter 19:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, Lee, you need to chill out and assume good faith. It looks like the George Vithoulkas article will survive its AFD, largely through the efforts of some of the editors you are accusing of cabalism. Cheers, Skinwalker 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep pending addition of sources. This nomination is a pretty egregious WP:POINT violation based on arguments at Talk:George Vithoulkas and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Vithoulkas. I would like to see non-crufty reliable sources demonstrating this individual's notability, but as the article is very new I realize that they may be forthcoming. Skinwalker 17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending addition of sources. as Skinwalker. Further bio info to be forthcoming. .. dave souza, talk 18:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC) change to keep as sources added dave souza, talk 09:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep pending addition of sources •Jim62sch• 20:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Being the long term editor of the major journal in the field is notable. (And since there will easily be sources) DGG 04:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Give it a chance. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 05:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This is clearly a bad faith nomination made in the setting of a rancorous dispute. Lee Hunter is frustrated and is making a statement here about the hypocracy of saying that this guy is notable enough to have a page while George Vithoulkas is not. I urge Lee to withdraw the nomination, and I urge folks who have voted to keep this page and delete George Vithoulkas to think about whether that is reasonable or not. Abridged 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - Notable. Lakers 00:43, 29 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.