Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Cathcart

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 delete. After several rather thin arguments such as "Delete, Non-notable" or "Keep, notable figure" are dismissed, a sizable majority of editors who have discussed the issue of sourcing in detail conclude convincingly that the sources are too unsubstantial to provide notability. Sandstein 21:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Cathcart[edit]

Delete - Individual does not meet notability criteria per WP:BIO. Furthermore, all the citations are either to the individual's own site or to commercial sites. Djma12 ^(talk) 03:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick google search shows up no reliable hits for this subject. It also fails notability guidelines as well. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article fails WP:BIO. Daniel ⁵¹²⁷ 06:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is a notable author in Orthomolecular medicine as regards megadose vitamin C, especially the oral dosing to bowel tolerance concept & protocol, with documented correspondence & praise from Linus Pauling, as well as several noted publications in Medical Hypotheses (5 pubmed indexed articles ?). His oral dosing for vitamin C is considered pioneering in orthomolecular circles (last stop before IV) and decades ahead of *any* published tests at these adminstration levels in "mainstream" pharma advertisers' journals. He also has publication in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine. This author is one of a handful of authors close to ground zero in the collision between science, CAM and conventional medicine over vitamin C. The article's deletion would be considered highly censorious in some circles. The article just needs to be cleaned up and better referenced.--TheNautilus 11:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: See, all the new sources are merely to the author himself. Please review WP:BIO requirements on notability, as well as WP:SOAP on fringe theories. Djma12 ^(talk) 12:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some secondary sources, there are more. Interestingly, the some in the "mainstream" with absolutely NO DATA in 11-200+ gram/day range, swing the epithet, "fringe theory", while pontificating on the basis of decades of solid vacuum, see pseudoskepticism. Also you might brush up on WP:COI and WP:NPOV. I would like to collaborate, not argue.--TheNautilus 23:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. The text doesn't appear to be based on reliable third party sources about him: just papers by him, mostly at a journal whose policy is to waive the normal peer review process [1], and one partisan Lulu-published book. It smells of WP:SOAP. Gordonofcartoon 22:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Cathcart is prominant as a medical doctor within orthomolecular medicine. There is an interview with him published on Pubmed [2] when he was Chairman-elect of the Board of Trustees of the American Hospital Association. He is often cited in papers on the medical use of vitamin C ( see Cathcart R F. Vitamin C: the nontoxic, nonrate- limited, antioxidant free radical scavenger. Med Hypotheses 1985; 18: 61-77. Cathcart, R. F, III. The Method of Determining Proper Doses of Vitamin C for the Treatment of Disease by Titrating to Bowel Tolerance. Journal of Orthomolecular Psychiatry 10:2, 125-132, March-April 1981). He has had letters published in The Lancet [3] 1990 , Medical Tribune [4] 1975. Full bibliography is here. He fully meets notability requirements. His work is experimental and not accepted in the mainstream but to delete him would be POV censorship of minority scientific opinion. Lumos3 22:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that. Looking at the refs cited above, there seems to be no reason for complaint about representation of this opinion (Orthomolecular medicine#Notable orthomolecular doctors). Most, however, have wider notability and are easy to find in third party sources. Deciding that not all members on the list are notable is not censorship (any more than deciding that not all modern artists are notable is censorship of modern art).

The point also remains that the article is not reporting sourced third party statements about him. It's an OR exposition collating material by him. That's also why I think it's WP:SOAP; the undue weight to this exposition. It's supposed to be a biographical article, but the man appears incidental to the opportunity to slug us with an essay on the benefits of vitamin C. Gordonofcartoon 01:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an interview with him published on Pubmed [5] when he was Chairman-elect of the Board of Trustees of the American Hospital Association.

There isn't. That's H Robert Cathcart, someone else. Gordonofcartoon 16:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum Cathcart developed his interest in vitamin C dosage while trying to speed healing after surgury for hip replacement. He is the inventor of the non spheroidal shape used in modern replacements. This alone satisfies the notability requirement. Lumos3 11:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lumos3: Appreciate your efforts, but it still doesn't fit WP:BIO notability. Anyone can patent anything. The non-spheroidal hip replacement is NOT standard of care -- so all we have again is a self-reference, and his own patent on a non-notable medical device. Djma12 ^(talk) 12:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please read the citations I added , the work is noted in the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - British Volume Online. (1983). [6] Lumos3 12:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it doesn't support the statement in the article. A 1983 paper, cut off at 1971 after mentioning Cathcart, is not evidence of this form being commonly used nowadays, or of its implied dominant role in the historical development of such prostheses. The other reference [7] is just a scrapbook of unattributed material. Gordonofcartoon 12:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try putting "Cathcart elliptical head endoprosthesis" into Google [8] Lumos3 13:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those who haven't done this - this search turns up several links, all of which point to the same 2001 article indicating that the "noncemented elliptical head unipolar replacement was associated with a high medical and surgical complication rate as well as poor clinical and radiographic results." I'm not an orthopod, but I can tell you that the lack of success or even published follow-up tests with that device makes it pretty unlikely that it's in current use. Now, Cathcart may be notable, but almost certainly not for this. Ante lan ^talk 13:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No references presented other than his own papers and the Lulu book. (Having letters published, even in a peer-reviewed journal, is not even evidence of notability.) — Arthur Rubin |

RE:Notability - how many of the rock groups with pages allowed to stand on Wikipedia would meet the test for "notability" that you are demanding of this doctor? Isn't the fact of this discussion itself prima facie evidence of notability in his field? Be that as it may, this user thinks it is healthier that websurfers looking for Dr Cathcart - or any other "alternative" practitioner or method - are not led to Wikipedia. There are plenty of primary scources out there which cannot be contaminated by dishonesty and/or ignorance. Whoever has a Wikipedia reference leaves hostages to fortune.

(talk) 22:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. No change in !vote, in spite of the addition of additional "sources" which I do not believe to be WP:RS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update. Changed to Strong Delete, as the primary proponent (here) has been unable to produce a WP:RS, in spite of claimed knowledge of the field. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 07:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate specific commentary on sources 6-17, especially 10, 14, 16 (a chapter), 17, 18. Also since Hemila's 2006 thesis is the detailed version of Hemila's work in two accepted Cochrane reviews, I would appreciate any pointers to specific WP discussions on theses, since this seems to be a case that does fit WP:RS, Reliable sources are authors or publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. where Hemila's thesis is arguably the more detailed & (later) reviewed (updated) part of Douglas, Hemila (2004) plus part of Hemila, Louhiala(2007) Cochrane reviews.

Delete - Fails Wikipedia policy, arguements to keep don't meet policy. Shot info 23:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article says "A prominent figure in alternative medicine."--Michael C. Price ^talk 08:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm having trouble finding secondary sources about Cathcart. Can someone who supports keeping this article try to round up a few? I see that he's published a few articles, mostly in journals like Medical Hypotheses, but I'm not seeing the secondary sources that would confirm notability. (Note: orthomed.com is registered to Robert Cathcart.) Ante lan ^talk 13:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The secondary sources are all in the fields of alternative health, orthomolecular medicine and life extension, where he is well known. Lumos3 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.positivehealth.com/permit/Articles/Nutrition/vitc12.htm

http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/index.cfm?action=news&ID=200

http://www.alliance-natural-health.org/index.cfm?action=news&ID=187

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/19185.php

http://www.vitamincfoundation.org/RDA.htm

http://www.google.com/search?output=googleabout&sitesearch=www.vitamincfoundation.org&q=cathcart&submit=Search+our+site 135 mentions on vitamin c foundation site

http://www.megac.org/articles.htm

http://orthomedint.org/language/English/05-SuggestedReading/index.php

http://orthomedint.org/

http://www.cqs.com/

http://www.lef.org/featured-articles/may2000_vitamin_c_01.html

http://www.arthritistrust.org/Articles/Vitamin%20C%20How%20to%20Use%20the%20Great%20Missing%20Vitamin.pdf

http://www.patrickholford.com/content.asp?id_Content=1473

http://www.fitnessvenues.com/uk/vitaminc-the-truth

Thanks again for the sources Lumos3. If you carefully read the articles, though, note that several of them are identical, and they are all merely citing orthomed.com. Again, per WP:BIO notability criteria, independent citation is required, not rehashes of the author's website. Djma12 ^(talk) 18:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With references to places such as the Vitamin C Foundation, I feel that we're dredging the bottom of a very shallow well of sources. That foundation's RDA page states, "Vitamin C is about as toxic as water. The body seems to absorb what it needs", which is an explicitly untrue description of the way the body absorbs water. Ante lan ^talk 18:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Those links are a list of unreliable quack sites, a veritable who's who of quackery. -- Fyslee/talk 10:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as a researcher--8 articles in PubMed journals total, counting letters to the editor and nursing journals, is trivial & way below the bar. The cult stuff is all derived from his own website, or self-published. Medical hypotheses specializes in what are explicitly hypotheses, not evidence-based anything, but that they'd publish articles advocating half-pound size vitamin C doeses is a little odd. DGG (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete He is clearly someone the Quackwatch folks would consider a quack yet he is not even noteworthy enough to be mentioned anywhere on their website[9] [10]. Pocopocopocopoco 00:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Requested independent secondary sources and nobody produced any notable ones. I do appreciate Lumos3's effort, but this is not a notable individual so far as has been evidenced in this discussion. Ante lan ^talk 07:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We are not trying to establish Cathcarts scientific credentials here. We are trying to see if he fits any guidlines in Wikipedia:Notability (people). He clearly fits the following:

"The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field."

This is evidenced by his being widely mentioned on the alternative health, orthomolecular medicine and life extension sites, as shown above. Lumos3 12:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This WP:Afd should not be about whether you believe in his theory or not. May I direct everyone to the criteria for academics per WP:PROF.

The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources.

Indepedent here is defined as outside of the immediate community, in this case the orthomolecular one. As we have no cites outside of the orthomolecular, the article fails in this regard.

The person is regarded as an important figure by independent academics in the same field.

None of the sources cited in support have been from nutritionists or academics -- just heath websites that recopy the his original self-publication.

The person has published a significant and well-known academic work.

The author's publication is in an un-peer reviewed journal (Medical Hypotheses) and is unknown to anyone outside his immediate field.

The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known.

See above.

The person is known for originating an important new concept, theory or idea which is the subject of multiple, independent, non-trivial reviews or studies in works meeting our standards for reliable sources.

Again, fails criteria on independent, non-trivial reviews. Health sites that sell vitamins and forums do not count.

The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.

The author has not received any notable award recogonized by the scientific community.

There are full professors on the National Academy of Sciences who don't meet notability. This one falls far short. Djma12^Djma12 ^(talk) 13:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Cathcart’s field as orthomolecular medicine he meets all 6 of these. It is you who add phrase "Independent here is defined as outside of the immediate community ...” I say that independent means the independent views of others within his field. You keep returning this judgement to whether he has been accepted by science as a whole. Your argument would exclude from Wikipedia any scientist who comes forward with a plausible hypothesis which is not yet accepted by the main stream. To be of any use Wikipedia must describe all plausible scientific hypotheses that have gained a following in a section of the scientific community however small. OM is just such a minority group and Cathcart is a major figure within OM. Lumos3 20:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Djma12 seriously miscontrues "independent" and is being very exclusionist. Also one should distinguish scientific and (allopathic) medical, some (over) commercialized/institutionalized sectors in medicine have developed habits not in concord with scientific principles or practices in other scientific fields, especially with regard to emerging phenomena. In fact, one of the ongoing problems for some hidebound "mainstream" claimants, is that science/technologists from other fields finally start minding them about such failures.--TheNautilus 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is not the forum for any and everyone to voice their personal theories. (See WP:SOAP.) This is why notability criteria require independent verification from some source outside the community. If the OM community is really as minority as you claim it is, then it is non-encyclopedic. If it actually has some following, then you should be able to find at least some independent sources for this guy. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial and professional battle lines are drawn such that otherwise non-notable, *erroneous*, supposedly "mainstream" sources get instant play in the (heavily influenced advertising) press and orthomolecular medicine is *studiously* ignored, blackedout or embargoed in many cases. Erroneous sometimes means "trial by press release* not followed by a corroborating academic publication or systematic errors, such as Chalmers. Chalmers' "meta-somethings" form the much of the modern backbone of confusion (and utter denial - whither *any* controlled testing to follow up very promising clinical reports over 60 years in "huge" megadose vitamin C, e.g. 20-200+ grams/day oral or IV, despite repeated pleas?) about vitamin C in viral respiratory diseases. Hemila et al's re-analyses, mentioned in his 2004 Cochrane review, detailed in his 2006 thesis, destroy Chalmers' putative meta-analyses, where one can seriously consider scientific incompetence, malfeasance and/or misconduct. That is often part and parcel the path of (persecuted) minorities. In altmed topics, one must often carefully distinguish science (rationale, *type*, *level* & totality of evidence) vs allopathic medicine (variously past, present and/or comprehensively scientific) vs obsolete or non-scientific POV of some claimants.--TheNautilus 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (As I can't decide to whom this is in reply....) If he were notable in the orthomolecular medicine community, he meets the criteria for listing. However, as all but one of the references are to his papers (and all but one of the references mentioned here are to his papers and mirrors of his papers), we do not have any evidence of that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even sure on the first point. Even in the OM community, Cathcart is only known for the bowel tolerance concept. Per WP:PROF

Note that if an academic is notable only for their connection to a single concept, paper, idea, event or student it may be more appropriate to include information about them on the related page, and to leave the entry under the academic as a redirect page..

I'm pretty sure he doesn't deserve his own page. Djma12 ^(talk) 21:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that's wrong.

First Djma12's entire sequence above starts off miscasting the notability requirements, Cathcart is not academic, so WP:BIO#Criteria_for_notability_of_people apply, although Carthcart does meet a number of WP:PROF criteria by any fair minded application, where any one of them establishes notablity. Djma12's specific answers above either miss the obvious, miscast or dismiss them out of hand. There are now a number of orthomolecular references in the article that show Cathcart's notable participation in the field.--TheNautilus 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Cathcart is quoted by the very notable Harry Hemila, the main author of the Cochrane meta-analyses on vitamin C and the common cold. I quote Hemila:

There is much evidence indicating that vitamin C metabolism changes during infections and this may affect the relationship between doses and adverse effects (Fig. 1; see pp 6-7). It has been reported that people with serious infections can ingest over 50 g/day of vitamin C without gastric problems (Luberoff 1978; Cathcart 1981).

we also have notability by association:

In one of his last texts, Albert Szent-Györgyi (1978) mentioned a personal experience: "Last year I collected a rather unfortunate personal experience. I broke down with pneumonia which I could not shake off for months, until I discovered that the quantities of ascorbic acid which I took (one gram daily) had become insufficient at my age (84 years). When I went up from one gram to eight, my troubles were over."

http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/laa/kansa/vk/hemila/dovitami.pdf We could discuss about Hemila's use of "gastric" instead of "intestinal". However, this remains a quote to the article by Cathcart having "BOWEL TOLERANCE" in its title...

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 22:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's weak evidence for the other article, not for this one. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:06, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Why? Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 04:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment. Notability by association is not a valid criterion per WP:BIO. The Szent-Györgyi quotation is irrelevant to discussion on this article.Djma12 ^(talk) 23:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response and clarifications. Ok, Djma12. Let's take your point for the sake of argument.

Now, can we assume that you have no problems with the main statement I made, I quote:

"Cathcart is quoted by the very notable Harry Hemila, the main author of the Cochrane meta-analyses on vitamin C and the common cold. I quote Hemila:

There is much evidence indicating that vitamin C metabolism changes during infections and this may affect the relationship between doses and adverse effects (Fig. 1; see pp 6-7). It has been reported that people with serious infections can ingest over 50 g/day of vitamin C without gastric problems (Luberoff 1978; Cathcart 1981).

I was about to say that somebody, above said: "Again, per WP:BIO notability criteria, independent citation is required, not rehashes of the author's website". But it's you, who raised this. So: am I providing "independent citation" or not?

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 04:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, per WP:PROF, point 4, Nonetheless, numbers of publications can be judged quantitatively to a degree. The importance of a paper can often be deduced from the number of citations of it. So the only other reinforcing citation is a minor reference in a meta-analysis that included literally thousands of studies. Hardly convincing. Djma12 ^(talk) 04:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the other AfD discussion page about Cathcart:

This is what I feared. This quote is NOT from a Cochrane meta-analysis. You did not pay enough attention, and you criticized what you thought I put forward, not what I actually brought to everybody's attention.

This kind of behaviour distracts readers. You also distracted readers by stating, right at the beginning (of the bowel tolerance AfD discussion page), that "bowel tolerance" is a "non-recognized medical condition", to which I responded, because I know what we're talking about, that "It is not a "medical condition"!" Aren't we wasting time?

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 04:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Pierre. I would suggest you actually READ the Cochrane meta-analysis, given that you cited it? The quote (sans the "much evidence" part), is verbatim inside of it. For your convenience, here is the link to the article [11]. Also, please don't simply copy and paste your comments in both Afds, the "medical condition" argument is not even relevant for this Afd. Djma12 ^(talk) 13:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I quoted a text. You ignore it. I provided credentials. This answers questions others have asked. You're still avoiding. I could answer to those things you're saying, but it would be a waste of time. This is not the first time you do that.

This lack of respect is now over. I'm now ignoring you, indefinitely. Don't write on my userpage, like Antelan did.

I ASK OTHER EDITORS TO READ MY INITIAL VOTE, AND ITS ACTUAL JUSTIFICATIONS.

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 07:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Djma12 Please look closely and carefully. Pierre specified (re-linked) Hemila's 2006 thesis for his third doctorate as containing several direct references to Cathcart, 1981. Additionally, the Luberoff, 1978 reference in Hemila's 2006 thesis is the American Chem Society's published interview with Cathcart, "Symptomectomy", describing Cathcart's experience and background with the bowel tolerance vitamin C protocol. Pierre *did not* specify Hemila's 2004 Cochrane review. However you can see Hemila taking note of Cathcart in his 2006 PhD thesis, after this stinging exchange in 2005 over her 2004 Cochrane review, with Bill Sardi and Steve Hickey. Apparently Cathcart is still notable to Hemila, in his 2007 Cochrane review on vitamin C and pneumonia (more favorable), because he again cites Cathcart, 1981 and Luberoff, 1978. I would say that's pretty notable considering the degree of heresy involved.--TheNautilus 13:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments, to my mind, take a good stand in support of the bowel tolerance article, but it doesn't seem sufficient to validate this individual's notability. Ante lan ^talk 14:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt the independent citations were more than sufficient to establish Cathcart's notability to the point of interfering with presentation and readability as well as the popularity/notoriety of the B-T method in altmed and orthomolecular circles. Also I would take Pauling's praise and correspondence length first.--TheNautilus 14:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some grad student's thesis does not fit WP:V by a long shot. If you want to use the Cochrane meta, please refer to my past critique. Djma12 ^(talk) 14:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, this degree of dissection of sources is getting well into WP:SYNTH. I'm particularly looking at arguments along the lines of "it's so heretical that any mention at all in a mainstream source demonstrates its notability". We are not allowed to make that kind of inference. If something is notable, it ought to be clear-cut to all concerned. If it has to argued via complicated editorial interpretation of the combined significance of its getting a brief mention in paper X, meta-meta-review Y and being tattooed on Z's butt, the chances are the notability is insufficient. Gordonofcartoon 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not dissecting or SYNTH, I am pointing out that Djma12 keeps missing which Hemila papers (sources) are being discussed and sliding around as if Pierre & I are the ones not comprehending something, when our points are evaded & then disparaged. Let's get that straight. Separately, the "hersey" aside refers to well-known publication bias & systematic biases of the "mainstream" & pharma against their competitors (& targets), where applying the normal rules of notability for "mainstream" articles being referenced by other mainstream pubs & Medline, are not only SYNTH but completely broken models.--TheNautilus 10:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Djma12, Hemila's PhD thesis is *not* "just some grad student's thesis", rather it provides the underlying details for Hemila's work in the accepted 2004 Cochrane review (Douglas, Hemila, D'Souza, Chalker, Treacy for vit C & colds), updated, and some of the 2007 Cochrane review (Hemila, Louhiala for vit C & pneumonia). Also Hemila is an associate professor, already possessing a PHD(1993) and MD(1999) with one of the longest cumulative mainstream tenures rigorously examining the vitamin C viral issues with recognizable mainstream RCT, RCT that use some combination of short (often several days), inappropriate pharmacokinetics (mostly single daily dose - vs every hour or two), and always relatively "small", by 1-2 orders of magnitude, in respect to Cathcart's B-T regimen but still finds subgroups that benefit and indications of dose dependence. The accepted PhD thesis is electronically published by U Helsinki.--TheNautilus 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a smell of wikilawyering and obfuscation. If someone non-mainstream is notable, we don't have to pick around in obscure publications to find evidence of that. They'll be reported prominently in the mainstream for the controversial nature of what they do (for instance, Andrew Wakefield). Cathcart simply isn't that important as a non-mainstream figure. Gordonofcartoon 12:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. -- Fyslee/talk 10:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's gotten worse. If the hip prosthesis is to be mentioned at all (and there's little evidence of notability here), the articles on the severe complications mentioned in this discussion also need to be included in the article. If those references can be justified, I'll change my !vote to Weak keep. If not, he's only notable (if at all) for his association with Vitamin C megadosing, and should be merged into one of those articles, probably bowel tolerance (also up for deletion. Most of the references that I've checked seem to be only a passing mention, which do not support a finding of notability. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Maybe a case can be made for notoriety, which is a form of notability. If these complications have led to many deaths, then a case might be made. In Denmark an MD who made a cement used for hip prostheses has never yet been prosecuted, even though the cement was a disaster and caused untold suffering and deaths. Is this a similar type of situation? -- Fyslee/talk 15:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my guess that his prosthesis never achieved wide usage after the trial failed to show superiority. I could be wrong, but in that case I think we should have heard about the lawsuits... Ante lan ^talk 15:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable.--CrohnieGal^Talk 14:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable figure within the field of alternative medicine. Burntsauce 16:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We've been looking for RSes that confirm this notability. Would you be able to help here? Ante lan ^talk 17:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.