Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Greece/2007

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 speedy delete per WP:CS#A7. --Wafulz 14:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ektos Mahis

Ektos Mahis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

I first heard about this band reading the article, while updating WP:GREECE. I checked Google search, using the Greek characters (Εκτός Μάχης), and I had not more that 2 hits about the band (using members's names as well in the search, the results remain disappointing), and these coming from their official site. Using the English characters, I did not have more than 8-9 hits about the band. I don't think it is notable enough for the English Wikipedia. I don't even think it is a notable Greek band. Yannismarou 11:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - unremarkable garage band. So tagged. MER-C 13:53, 6 April 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.

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 no consensus. John Reaves (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkish settlement

Turkish settlement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

Simply a POV Fork of Cyprus dispute. The title of the article might be original research, the content contains two paragraphs about the property disputes in the Cyprus dispute, however not clear how they qualify under "Turkish settlement". Delete, and merge (if possible) any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute. Baristarim 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as nominator. Baristarim 01:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete because it's a clear POV fork. The parent article has problems, too, but that's not for this discussion. YechielMan 02:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, notable subject that acquires a topic of its own. --Mardavich 07:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I invite any of the keep voters to point to the use of "Turkish settlement" in referring to the Cyprus dispute - otherwise it is nothing but original research. Baristarim 21:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The Turkish settlement is one of the top issues of the Cyprus dispute, but not only. I would go for a redirect to a subheading with the same title within the Cyprus dispute article, but until then... NikoSilver 12:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It might be notable, but it is a fork.. Baristarim 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I fail to see the POV of the title. Settlers and settlements do exist. And I do know that there is a series of decisions by the European Court of Human Rights vindicating Greek-Cypriot citizens having lost their property. And the fact that the government of the Republic of Cyprus accepts in the not-occupied territoty of Cyprus Turkish-Cypriots but not settlers who came to Cyprus later proves their existence.--Yannismarou 12:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• And when there is a recommendation by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe named Colonisation by Turkish settlers of the occupied part of Cyprus ... well ... I don't think that anybody here can question notability.
  

Let's see some of what this Recommendation says: "It is a well-established fact that the demographic structure of the island has been continuously modified since its de facto partition in 1974, as a result of the deliberate policies of the Turkish Cypriot administration and Turkey. Despite the lack of consensus on the exact figures, all parties concerned admit that Turkish nationals have since been systematically arriving in the northern part of the island. According to reliable estimates, their number currently totals 115 000." "The settlers come mainly from the region of Anatolia, one of the least developed regions of Turkey. Their customs and traditions differ significantly from those present in Cyprus. These differences are the main cause of the tensions and dissatisfaction of the indigenous Turkish Cypriot population, who tend to view the settlers as a foreign element" "In particular, the Assembly expresses its concern at the continuous outflow of the indigenous Turkish Cypriot population from the northern part of the island. Their number decreased from 118 000 in 1974 to an estimated 87 600 in 2001. In consequence, the settlers outnumber the indigenous Turkish Cypriot population in the northern part." "In the light of the information available, the Assembly cannot accept the claims that the majority of arriving Turkish nationals are seasonal workers or former inhabitants who had left the island before 1974. Therefore it condemns the policy of “naturalisation” designed to encourage new arrivals which was introduced by the Turkish Cypriot administration with the full support of the Government of Turkey."

I think that this very important political document could also prompt the further improvement of this notable article.--Yannismarou 12:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It is a WP:FORK - merge any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute. What is going on guys? Baristarim 21:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand. If there can be a comprehensive page detailing Israeli Settlements, why not Turkish ones? Chesdovi 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I agree with Yannismarou. This TR POV pushing is outrageous; these settlements do exist, denying that would like denying the Chinese settlements in Tibet and the Israeli settlements in the West Bank etc. [due to edit conflict]: Thanks to Chesdovi for also raising the issue.--Domitius 13:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. I can't think of a single non-politically motive for suggesting deletion. As Domitius said those events are factual, someone who wants to remove them can only have a biased agenda. Miskin 02:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep the rhetoric to a minimum please and watch for NPA. "Israeli settlements" are commonly used in English by major news organizations. I invite any of the keep voters to point to the use of "Turkish settlement" in referring to the Cyprus dispute - otherwise it is nothing but original research and part of a lame pie-throwing contest; likes of which, I had thought, were over already between Turkish and Greek users. Baristarim 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Another political documents treating the issue of Turkish settlers: RESOLUTION 10.3.1988 of the European Parliament: "Expects the Foreign Ministers meeting in political cooperation simultaneously to put pressure on the Turkish government, which is linked to the EEC by an association agreement and is an applicant for membership, to draw up a precise timetable for the withdrawal of its troops, in accordance with the proposals made by the UN SecretaryGeneral, and that of the Turkish settlers ..."
• I would also like to remind everybody here that the issue of settlers was the main reason the Greek Cypriot side and the Republic of Cyprus rejected the Annan Plan. See this report by Associated Press.--Yannismarou 13:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • "Settlers" NOT "Turkish settlements" - WP:OR is clearly at issue for the title. It is not clear what the title implies, nor what its usage is. "Israeli settlements" are commonly used in English by major news organizations. I invite any of the keep voters to point to the use of "Turkish settlement" in referring to the Cyprus dispute - otherwise it is nothing but original research and part of a lame pie-throwing contest; likes of which, I had thought, were over already between Turkish and Greek users. Nobody is stopping anyone from developping the Cyprus dispute. Baristarim 21:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork. This is a part of Cyprus dispute, i'd ask kindly that the editors do not introduce yet another pov ridden and controversial article which is covered somewhere else. --A.Garnet 14:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously the resolutions above are also "POV ridden" and "contrversial". Well, after deleting the article, we'll also get rid of them.--Yannismarou 15:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am referring to the state of this article. The sources can be applied somewhere else. --A.Garnet 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, then name me the "POV ridden" claims of the article. Although I believe that the resolutions I mentioned above are more harsh than the article itself towards the phainomenon of Turkish settlement.--Yannismarou 15:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The article first makes the claim that "Turkish settlements are communities established by Turkey", as if Turkey is somehow the Ottoman Empire passing a decree to establish overseas colonies. The use of word colonisation again portrays Turkey as orchestrating the movement of Turkish migrants. Turkey does not decide who goes to Cyprus, many Turks go to work over summer in the tourist season and return. Those who do stay are required to have a work permit. But this article does not seem concerned with these details, only in portraying Turkey in a certain light. Furthermore, the article says "such settlements currently exist..." as if this is a common phenomena regarding Turkey, when in fact this an aspect specifically related to the Cyprus problem. These are problems within a few lines, I dont expect this article to get better as it grows in size, but rather become another ugly Cyprus article. --A.Garnet 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Responses to your arguments:

• The settlers are coming from Turkey. Tyrkey allows them to settle in Northern Cyprus by allowing them to go there. If Turkey wanted to impede this phainomenon, it would have done it. Therefore, Turkey may not be Ottoman Empire, but it is a sovereign state tolerating this situation, and showing no will to reverse it. I thus believe that the verb "established" pictures with characteristic accuracy the present situation. After all, if it was not Turkey that "established" the settlement, then why are the Parliamentary Assembly and the European Parliament asking Turkey, in particular, to resolve the problem. I'm afraid, Garnet, that once again your problem is not with the article, but with the clear and sound resolutions of European Organizations and with the publications of UN. And, unfortunately, I can't help with that problem.
• The noun "colonisation" is again a NPOV term, also used by the Parliamentary Assembly of the COuncil of Europe. Unless you think, of course, that the great majority of this Parliament, and, therefore, the great majority of the population of Europe are biased against Turkey in this particular issue. But again this is your personal belief and impression. Official documents matter, and official documents of international organization are crystal clear about the ongoing colonisation of occupied Cyprus by Turkey.
• I fail to understand your third point. It would be helpful if you could be a bit more clear and specific, so that I can give an accurate answer. Such settlements do exist in Northern Cyprus, their existence is confirmed by all the international organizations, and it is Turkey which is held responsible for their existence. What is exactly your problem here?--Yannismarou 09:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We do not base articles on parliamentary or any political resolution. This is an encylopedia, we create academic articles based on scholarly research. Resolutions are fine for expressing support for one point of view, but they should not be the basis of any article. To be honest though Yannis, I have given up caring, this article will stay, it will be poor and ugly like a lot of other Cyprus related articles and that will be that. --A.Garnet 10:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

We search all available verifiable sources. That is why we also search news reports, which are not strictly part of what you call "scholarly research".--Yannismarou 11:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete pov fork ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Great idea for an article; needs expanding. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 20:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: I would like to closing administrator to note that - of the keep votes (as of now) one is from the creator of the article (User:Chesdovi), and the rest from Greek users who have engaged on many occasions in edit-warring and disputes with Turkish users, me included. I really had thought that at least for the TR-GR users this was over, but I was wrong. Article's title is WP:OR, and a FORK - merge any meaningful content to Cyprus dispute and develop the content there - what is the big deal, really? Baristarim 21:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment So what are Turkish settlements, anywhere in Cyprus, where there is a Turkish flag? Then I don't think there are that many. deniz^T_C 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • So, there is are no Turkish settlements anywhere but where the Turkish flag is flown? No Turkish settlements in Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia, Albania, or anywhere else, right? Carlossuarez46 23:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The picture on the page was some mosque with a Turkish flag (in Cyprus). I thought it was related to settlements, maybe it's not. So, then what are these settlements? In those Balkan countries we might have some "ghetto"s where Turkish people live and have lived for many hundred years (by the way, are they still called settlers?) Are the Turkish settlements in Cyprus ghettos of people from Turkey? I would rather guess that they would blend in, spread kinda uniformly among the 'original' Turkish Cypriots, not build some ghettos. Are they house by house, like any house owned by a settler is a settlement? What about the students? I think the first sentence of the article might be wrong, it should read "after the invasion" not "established by Turkey". I don't think Turkey established any ghettos there. deniz^T_C 00:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Settlements aren't necessarily inhabited by "settlers" in the sense of migrants. I assume you live in a settlement, which the United Nations uses to refer to any inhabited place. See the long discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (settlements) and its talk page. Since "Turkish" is both a nationality (you can have a Turkish passport and be of e.g. Greek, Armenian, Arab, Jewish, or Kurdish ethnicity) and an ethnicity (you can be ethnically Turkish and hold e.g., a Bosnian, Russian, or US passport), the use of Turkish to modify settlement in the context of Cyprus could well mean settlements in Cyprus inhabited by people of Turkish ethnicity or with Turkish passports. Based on the sources, these groups largely overlap anyway. Carlossuarez46 01:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I am sorry, but that would be our own interpretation as to what it means. Wikipedia transmits knowledge that exists: it is not a place to interpret information: No-one has been able to show where in the English language "Turkish settlement(s)" is used when referring to the Cyprus dispute, and especially not in the major news media - no such sources have been brought. Please see WP:OR - not to mention Fork issues with Cyprus dispute + Most common name policy. Baristarim 01:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, there is no need to have two separate POV names for the same territory. --FateClub 23:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but perhaps rename to Turkish settlement in Cyprus per the above and the deletionists seem to be pushing a POV. Carlossuarez46 23:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Can you explain how it is not a fork of Cyprus dispute and also produce any major news media release mentioning the expression "Turkish settlement"? "Israeli settlements" are regularly used by every news organization in the world, however this is not and poses WP:OR problems, on top of WP:fork.. And deletionists seem to pushing what POV precisely? (as of now) of the five delete votes, three were from non-Turks and two from Turks, am I missing something? Baristarim 01:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, do not redirect, it is too generic term. Pavel Vozenilek 06:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete;Must.^{T C} 07:26, 31 March 2007 (UTC).. Per nomination.
• Update. I expanded and cited the article. The first section needs the editing of editors with better sources to Turkish and Turkish-Cypriot sources, whom I invite to contribute. As far as the title is concerned, personally I believe that a renaming like the one proposed above by Carlossuarez46 (Turkish settlement in Cyprus or Turkish settlers in Cyprus) would be nice.--Yannismarou 12:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete see below Rename to Turkish settlers in Cyprus (if it's only about the new immigrants) or Redirect to TRNC (if 'settlers' before 1974 will also be included) or . Basically clarify the definition first. deniz^T_C 20:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Pavel (term is too vague and ambiguous) and merge whatever information is relevant into the appropriate articles. Khorshid 04:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is a fact that settlements do exist in Northern Cyprus and by deleting this article would not chnage anything. It is very informtive about the topic. Although there might be some POV in the article it should be fixed, but not delete the whole article. ROOB323 09:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can be give me a name of these "settlements" in Northern Cyprus if they are such a fact? If you people are going to draw connotations with Israeli settlements i.e. the creation of new towns and villages to accomodate settlers, then i'd like to know their names. --A.Garnet 09:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Usurping the homes and properties of the Greek Cypriots negated the need for that, wouldn't you agree? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 14:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that's rhetoric and such interpretations will simply stay ours. Nearly all impartial voters have agreed that this article was a fork, and it still hasn't been shown where in the English language the term "Turkish settlement" has been used - I can easily do a Google search for "Israel settlements", or in any major news agency's web-site and get hundreds of thousands of hits. None of the keep voters still hasn't been able to show news releases et al where such an expression is used - let alone bring sources per WP:ATT that show or name any of these "Turkish settlement". The title has WP:OR problems, and the article is a WP:FORK of Cyprus dispute. I don't get what the big deal is really, no-one is saying that the content should be deleted. However, you surely must see the OR and Fork problems of this article? Baristarim 16:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Rhetoric? Interpretations? You're not seriously denying that settlers were brought in from Turkey to alter the island's demographic balance after 1974, and occupy properties whose title deeds belong to Greek Cypriots? I simply can't fathom why the Turkish editors are getting their knickers into a knot over such petty semantics. Turkish settlement doesn't have to refer to specific locations - although it could well do - it is an also an abstract noun referring to the indisputable act of bringing in those settlers in the first place. Simple English, really. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Not denying or confirming anything, however please bring sources per WP:ATT that attest to such a usage in the English language, otherwise it is WP:OR. Baristarim 16:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That Turkish settlement has taken place on Cyprus? You're kidding me, right? ·ΚέκρωΨ· 16:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That "Turkish settlement" as a term is used in the English language like "Israeli settlements" (which was the first line of argument and analogy by the keep voters) - if not, what the term means will be OR since Turkish settlement can also refer to Turkish neighborhoods in Berlin etc. Can you please bring per WP:ATT sources that attest that a) The term "Turkish settlement" is used in the English language and b) moreover, that there is an overwhelming concensus in the English language usage that it refers to the Cyprus dispute. You say "Israeli settlements" to any English language speaker, and they will understand what you are referring to, however you say "Turkish settlement" and they will not understand what you are talking about. Come on, prove me wrong: Bring sources per WP:ATT that attest to such a usage in English, and especially in the news media et al. I am sorry Kekrops, but please do not continue this conversation unless you can address the issues raised. All impartial users have agreed that this was a fork, and you still haven't produced any of the sources I asked for above. Baristarim 17:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said, please do not assume bad faith Kekrops, I clearly said in my nom "merge if possible any content to Cyprus dispute" - nobody is asking for it to be "wiped off the face of the planet". I hope you understand what I am trying to say. Baristarim 17:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you can't understand the difference between a concrete and an abstract noun, that's your problem. The term is used almost ubiquitously in English, as attested by the sources provided on this page which you have dismissed. If you're denying that Turkish settlers/settlement is used in English, you must be getting pretty desperate. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

"Turkish settlement" is not used in English, definitely not when referring to the Cyprus dispute, then prove me wrong and bring me sources attesting to its usage in BBC, CNN et al reports - however you can easily find sources saying "Israeli settlements". I definitely know the difference between nouns, however WP:ATT clearly says that our knowledge is irrelevant. That usage has to be out there. Baristarim 17:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It already is out there. Yet again, you're trying to deny the undeniable. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? The search results at the BBC News website returns a whopping ZERO hits [1] And when searched not as a single term, it returns a whopping 26 hits, all referring to the "political settlement" [2]. I wonder who is "denying the undeniable". Even though I am Turkish, my primary language is English and I am telling you that the term "Turkish settlement" is not used in the English language. Btw, pls cut down on the straw man and rhetoric, it is not helpful to the debate. Baristarim 17:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

However, there are results for "Israeli settlement" [3] and "Israeli settlements" [4]. So I rest my case :) Baristarim 17:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

If the article wants to discuss the composition of North Cyprus in terms of mainland Turks and their integration into Cyprus then that should be done under Demographics of Cyprus. That imo is the most npov way of doing it. --A.Garnet 17:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Comment For the benefit of those who cannot or will not understand that Turkish settlement means precisely the same thing as Turkish settlers, the only difference being that the former is an abstract noun denoting the latter which is a concrete noun, here is a Turkish source which has been quoted by Turkish editors on numerous occasions and which uses the term in all possible permutations: http://cyprus-conflict.net/volkan.htm. Enjoy. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  BBC News carries much more weight when it comes to establishing English usage than cyprus-conflict.net/volkan.htm. And BBC has never used it [5]. Give it up Kekrops, there is no way that you can prove that "Turkish settlement" is used in the English language, not the least when referring to the Cyprus dispute. Your claim that they mean the same thing is your own opinion, I respect that, but WP:ATT says that our opinions are not relevant - there has to be an established usage in the English language. I have brought extremely authoritive sources that attest that there is no such usage (see above). volkan.htm is not the same. Plus this article has WP:FORK issues on top of WP:OR, merge the content, what is the big deal? Baristarim 17:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  Nor has CNN. "Turkish%20settlement" - your persistence is astonishing Kekrops! :) There is no way that you can prove that "Turkish settlement" is not OR. Should I dig up more authoritive sources? Baristarim 17:54, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  Your persistence in failing to understand simple English grammar is what is truly astonishing here. If you seriously think your point is proven by a BBC or CNN site search, I rest my case. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 17:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  It is proven per WP:ATT that there is no such usage (since it was the first line of defense and analogy coming from the creator of the article and most of keep voters, that "Turkish settlement" was akin to "Israeli settlements" - which has been proven wrong by established English usage using WP:ATT). Plus this article still has Fork issues on top of OR. Merge it to Cyprus dispute.. Baristarim 18:08, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  If you really can't stomach the term Turkish settlement, you might like to consider instead Turkish colonisation, as per the Council of Europe document provided by User:Yannismarou. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  It is not a question of stomaching, it is a question of OR, NPOV and undue weight. All of this is covered under "Cyprus dispute" - nobody is stopping from including anything in that article, but that is the article suited for all that information. Thus, the Fork issue. Baristarim 18:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

  The same could be said for Garnet's attempt to create a Cypriot Civil War article. Your concern for the sanctity of WP:FORK was not as ardent in that case, unfortunately. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You want to tell me what exactly is FORK about covering the disintegration of Cyprus before 74? --A.Garnet 18:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I will, once you tell me what is "fork" about covering the process by which an ethnically pure Turkish "state" was established in the north of Cyprus, namely by means of the expulsion of the Greek population and the massive influx of settlers from Turkey, or Turkish settlement if you will. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I was not in Wikipedia when that article was created, so I don't know the story. Baristarim 18:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The story, Baris, is that the article I created was an attempt to plug a huge gap in the coverage of Cyprus related articles in that no detailed explanation was given of intercommunal violence from 63-74 which disintegrated the Republic. The issue in this article however, which barely adresses it, can be found in Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, Cypriot refugees, Cyprus, and Cyprus dispute. --A.Garnet 18:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. The word settlement has two quite distinct meanings: (1) a community consisting of a number of dwellings; (2) the process of settling, as the result of migration. The title of the article is accordingly ambiguous. The disputed article as well as the present discussion appear to confuse the two meanings, whether accidentally or not. As defined in the lead of the article, the meaning is unambiguously (1), but in a curiously restricted sense. It is as if we were to have an article "Italian house" starting "An Italian house is a house built by Italians during World War I." Are settlements of Turks in Kos or Bulgaria then not Turkish settlements? Settlements of Turks on Cyprus have existed since the 16th century. In the remainder of the article, the meaning gradually shifts to (2). Although many Turks may have settled on the island after the partition, and the Republic of Turkey has not discouraged this, these migrants did not form new settlements, and no evidence is presented in the article that any communities were established by Turkey in Cyprus after the partition, nor do the cited sources support this contention. Thus, following the restricted definition of the lead, there are no Turkish settlements. The definition in the lead can be relaxed, of course, to refer to any Turkish communities, including those in existence on Cyprus at the time of the EOKA coup, but that defeats the whole purpose of the article, which would have to be completely rewritten to accommodate the new definition.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not at all versed on this subject, but your comment that "these migrants did not form new settlements" seems to be contradicted by a letter printed in the IHT: "Hundreds of illegal settlements have been established in occupied areas"Chesdovi 12:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Chesdovi, those are the letters of readers, you are aware of that, right? Please give the link to the article itself, if it is mentioned there. But you might be right a little bit, once I posted a comment on a Kurdish newspaper (?) website (I don't remember the website now, I found it through Yahoo! Alerts quite a while ago, it was the English version, I bookmarked it but then removed bookmark after like a week), they were bashing Erdoğan for a comment he made, in a few minutes the website was filled with anti-Turkish comments, I wrote something like Talabani said about the same thing, but my comment was not published, even though many other Turkey-bashing ones were published after that. So, having a comment there might reflect the opinion of the journalist as well, but that might be true only for that Kurdish website. deniz^T_C 15:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I was merely pointing out that there is another opinion and of course the letter carries no weight! (Where is a list of "new" Turkish settlements on the web? Why are the Israeli ones so well documented?!!) Chesdovi 16:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, as WP:ATT states: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true. Where is the reliable source for the statements in the lead?  --Lambiam^Talk 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Chesdovi, your opinion is more valuable to me than that reader's opinion is. I changed my vote to delete only, as the current lead claims things with no support and then the article deals with something else, apparently the article won't get better. I am worried it will be anything goes — anytime the editor feels like it. Now we even have the Turkish settle-ment, act of settling. deniz^T_C 21:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but rename if necessary. - Gilgamesh 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. So many settlers in the occupied area of Cyprus that outnumber the Turkish Cypriots Aristovoul0s 15:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per Lambiam. On reading the title I honestly had never even considered the possibility of the concrete as opposed to the abstract meaning of "settlement", but as Lambiam rightly points out, the article thoroughly mixes the two up. In its present form it is ill-defined and muddled, and as such not a suitable sub-article for the main Cyprus conflict article - hence, it is a fork. Come back and write a new article on "Turkish settlement on Cyprus" (abstract!) when you've well thought out what the topic and its relation to the superordinate articles is going to be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:40, 5 April 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.

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)

[edit] George Vithoulkas

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

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.

ATTENTION! If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

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 [6] and [7]. 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 [8] 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) [9]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

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 early close and delete because of copyright violation [10]. A remake may be possible. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] George Vithoulkas

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

Pure advertisement, and appears to be written by the subject, at least at the start. no new material seems to have been added since (Though copyright violation was fixed). Adam Cuerden ^talk 14:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as NN, shaky on WP:V. It's amusing that his article claims 80,000 Google hits, which it does ... off of the Greek Google, using his surname alone. Well, heck, if you just Google my surname, it returns over 1.6 million hits. Googling his full name returns eleven hits on US Google. Nice try. RGTraynor 15:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, after Greek naming customs we cannot establish the identity of the subject without the middle name. It is customary to name the fist son after the father's father, the second after the mother's father ... If somebody named George Papadopoulos has six boys, and each has a boy in turn you wind up with six George Papadopoulos in the second generation, which explains the amount of Google hits Alf^Photoman 15:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if sourced and referenced i.a.w. WP:BIO by end of this AfD Alf^Photoman 00:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete possibly also shaky on WP:COI. Some of the references aren't strong. Eg. PubMed lists everything regardless of quality or where it has been published. This is often made as some claim for notability but it isn't. Maustrauser 22:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
• Absolute keep This is nuts. Vithoulkas is without question the most famous living homeopath and he has been notable for at least 30 years. His books are considered required reading in the field of homeopathy. He has published many books, written countless journal articles and he lectures around the world. To suggest that we delete him from WP is ridiculous. Can we at least bother to do a simple Google search before we propose an article for deletion (note that there are 44,000 hits for his full name not 11 as RGTraynor incorrectly claims above. Also note that Vithoulkas is often cited by his last name, so the actual number of hits would be much higher.) [11] Did you guys even bother to read the article? The fact that he was honored by various governments for his lifetime of work and that his name appears 500 times on the BBC website might be tiny clues that the guy is notable. --Lee Hunter 19:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Could we have some actual evidence of that? And you're using just his surname while RGTraynor was using his full three names. Adam Cuerden ^talk 20:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Suggesting we use three (or more) names (when he's only known by first and last) in a search is either just strange or patently stupid. Why don't you make the minimal effort to actually browse through the Google results for "George Vithoulkas". With the slightest effort it is painfully and blindingly obvious that he is extremely well-known around the world and very well-regarded. By the way, here's his Right Livelihood Award page from the Swedish parliament [12] I also would like to note that you have made a concerted effort to delete a number of articles about well-known homeopaths. Since this is a field with which you are obviously entirely unfamiliar, perhaps you should do a little more research before you launch yourself into a destructive project like this. ---Lee Hunter 21:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep if properly cited and sourced. The subject does appear to more than meet the criteria set out at WP:BIO. Nuttah68 20:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: he is really a famous person in homeopathy; the Right Livelihood Award is a proof that this is also recognised outside the homeopathy world; he wrote many books; many of them were translated in different language (e.g. German); please no fight against medical schools by deleting articles about their most famous representatives; deleting because of Greek naming conventions seems to be a pretence since his middle name is not known internationally (cf. the writing of his name on his books). Dr. Krischer 18:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to tell you that George Vithoulkas is one of the greatest practitioners of homeopathic medicine in the world. I know little about the technicalities of Wikipedia, but I do know about homeopathy. His textbook, the Science of Homeopathy is a great book and has remained in print in USA, UK and or India since its original publication in Athens in 1978. I am proud to have a signed copy, which he gave to my uncle Dr K Gardikas, then a professor of medicine and dean of the medical school of Athens University. His work in helping people with severe chronic disease is amazing; Francis Treuherz, Edtor of the Homeopath, journal of the Society of Homeopaths, UK. - Unsigned

We need reliable sources. Noone is offering them. Adam Cuerden ^talk 18:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I know we're supposed to assume good intentions, but you've strayed far beyond being merely disingenuous and are now wandering in the land of the trolls. The article (at the time you nominated it for deletion) had a huge list of sources including: Pubmed, Who's Who, Google Scholar, British Library, Papyros-Larousse-Britannica, International Directory of distinguished leadership, National Libary of Medicine Catalog, SCIRUS, the Swedish Parliament, the Hungarian government, [13] the Indian Health Ministry and others. That list was poorly presented but there is no way you can look at that list and tell me that the article "lacked sources" for establishing his notability. If you search for the name "Vithoulkas" in Google you get 95,000 hits. You might argue that some of those hits are for other guys called Vithoulkas but I challenge you to browse through those hits. I can assure you that you will find that roughly 98% of them are for George Vithoulkas the homeopath. --Lee Hunter 21:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, lets cool this for a moment because the last thing we need is a battle. Articles to be included in Wikipedia need to fulfill certain policies and guidelines, where the adhering to the policies is mandatory and the adherence to guidelines a question of debate. The first policy is WP:N, whereby it has to be proven by second party sources that a subject is notable. The second would be WP:A which says that the content of an article has to be attributable to a second party source. Our problem is that, as is, this article fails at least WP:N because we can hardly say that the Society of Homeopaths would be a second party source as Dr. (Mr.) Vithoulkas would be a member of it. We cannot say that a book written by the person is a second party source. What does certainly not work is first party sources, as any of these would fall under WP:OR. I am always happy to be wrong about the notability of a person but I cannot take the word from someone for it, I need sources. Alf^Photoman 19:00, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the Right Livelyhood Award is a reliable source. Also his book "Science of Homeopathy" is a reliable source. A list of his English books at Amazon.com can be found here ( http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/104-8489252-5159152?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=vithoulkas&Go.x=0&Go.y=0&Go=Go ). I think this is also a reliable source. Dr. Krischer 19:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

wonderful, if they are in the article and reliable then, as I said above, Keep Alf^Photoman 19:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment the external website of the Right Livelihood Award as a source has been in the article since before nomination for deletion if anyone wants to read it. Nuttah68 19:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

But is it reliable, or particularly notable? It's a small orginisation set up to give out prizes for... well... alternative medicine, the environment, art, etc. [14]. It is *NOT* the Sweedish Parliament as has been claimed around here. Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• Absolute keep: A man who has helped immensly in reviving classical homeopathy for the last 40 years... A man who has tought hundreds of medical doctors from all over the world and has guided them to see humanity's suffering from a totally holistic approach... A man who has written inspiring books and has a collection of international awards topped by the 1996 Alternative Nobel Prize - the Right Livelihood Award, should definately has his place in Wikipedia. As a Medical Doctor, I have little knowledge of the technicalities of this site (as other people have already mentioned above), but I do know about medicine and homeopathy and George Vithoulkas, has his place in Wikipedia (as for internet searches, on Saturday 10th of March 2007, 22:00 GMT, Google returned 48,600 addresses for 'George Vithoulkas', Yahoo returned 57,600 and Live Search 10.393....) Dr Andrew Tsourouktsoglou 22:07, 10 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.

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. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-11 11:01Z

[edit] Dimitris Mytaras

Dimitris Mytaras (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

This article was prodded and the prodded removed with no change in text. I believe the article fails WP:BIO and WP:V. It has been suggested that the last sentence of the article "Mytaras has participated in more than 30 international group shows, including the 1972 Venice Biennale" asserts notability. But I believe policy requires that assertion be validated when questioned. I have made no attempt to assess the assertions of article, let this unreferenced article be considered for AfD. Jeepday 03:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete due to failure to verify. Even if sources are added then I'd still have serious concerns about notability. --RaiderAspect 04:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Sources are easy enough to come by, although with little knowledge of the sites involved I'm unsure of their reliability. See [15] [16] [17]. I'm unsure of how notable he is, or what weight participating in the Venice Biennale carries, so no !vote from me. One Night In Hackney 04:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep the Venice Biennale is very prestigious.-MsHyde 06:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per MsHyde. Participation in the Biennale makes the artist notable. -- Bpmullins | Talk 16:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• KeepComment - The original article was probably violating WP:C as it was mostly copied from one of the above mentioned sources. Now it looks better and there are also two additional sources that should establish notability. Tikiwont 16:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Philippe Beaudette 21:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, one of the classic cases where there is a notable subject but references are not up to par Alf photoman 15:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletions. --   ⇒ bsnowball  15:55, 7 February 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.