Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Campbell

Anthony Campbell

Anthony Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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)

• 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)