Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Murphy

:{{la|Robin Murphy}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robin Murphy}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{Find sources|Robin Murphy}})

Non-notable homeopath. The only secondary coverage I can find is the statement that he ran a workshop in Delhi in 2004, [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/956307.cms here]. [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22robin+murphy%22+homeopath&btnG=Search+Archives&ned=us&hl=en&scoring=a Google News] has nothing of interest to deliver. [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22robin%20murphy%22%20homeopath&ned=us&hl=en&tbo=u&tbs=bks:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=np Google Books] does have a number of hits, but if you look at the results closely, you don't get much more than mentions (one as [http://books.google.com/books?id=hCQgQCs1KmwC&pg=PA177&dq=%22robin+murphy%22+homeopath&hl=en&ei=IiQ9TKH2NMP98AaYroioBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22robin%20murphy%22%20homeopath&f=false "prominent"], [http://books.google.com/books?id=U2muDIXMDWkC&pg=PA2&dq=%22robin+murphy%22+homeopath&hl=en&ei=IiQ9TKH2NMP98AaYroioBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false one guy chiming in with our subject] in a by with a doubtful publisher (same author as [http://books.google.com/books?id=-Fc0aOvaO6UC&dq=%22robin+murphy%22+homeopath&source=gbs_navlinks_s this one]))--not the significant discussion as required by WP:N. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Robin Murphy is a notable Homeopathy for his Homeopathic Medical Repertory, which differed from other Repertories in Homeopathy's 200 year history. You obviously are unaware of Homeopathy and it's history and therefore not suited to make a claim on who is notable and who is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhpedia (talk • contribs) 03:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Actually, xe is, because xe has done the legwork of looking for sources, and found (as reported above) nothing. Your counterargument is just a standard distraction fallacy, that attempts to avoid talking about the core problems of lack of sources. Sources are your best and only arguments. Ad hominems will simply be entirely discounted by the closing administrator. If you want to make an argument that holds any water at all, you'd better get to work and start citing some sources for your BLP writing right now. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• If the theory of homeopathy worked with Scotch whiskey, I'd be a happy man right now. But that aside, there are no sources. No sources, no notability, no Wikipedia article. Drmies (talk) 04:39, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Suggest ignoring the "homeopathic gadol" nonsense implied above. With regard to sources, the only thing we have to go on are his books. However, WorldCat shows paltry holdings (numbers in parenthesis): "Homeopathic Medical Repertory" (~20), "Robin Murphy's keynotes of the materia medica : commentary & group discussion" (1), "Case Analysis and Prescribing Techniques" (1), "Lotus Materia Medica" (~10), "Homeopathic remedy guide" (3). In other words, he's written a lot of material that almost nobody has taken note of. Much of the article has the flavor of WP:PROMOTION, including the [http://www.lotushealthinstitute.com/ link] to his commercial website. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC).
• Delete - Vanity page. Carrite (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Doubtful notability. JFW | T@lk 20:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

• Who is XE? Is he/her a homeopath? in the field of Homeopathy? Materia Medica's are the collection of medical information of homeopathy since its inception. It is an invaluable tool that homeopaths use in treating their patients. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathic_Materia_Medica . Most repertories have followed a similar struction and schema since the publishing of Kent's Repertory in 1897. A major complaint of new homeopathic students and practitioners alike was the presentation of the information in the materia medica. Murphy's repertory changed that with an easier, more unified and comprehensive schema, updated language that was outdated that most people today wouldn't understand, alphabetized the chapters and rubrics (huge difference for usage) and included compilations of the major historical repertory works but also clinical experiences of not only Dr. Murphy's 30 years of practice but also modern homeopathy as well. You'd be hard pressed to find a homeopath in the world that doesn't know of or more likely doesn't own the Murphy repertory or his Remedy Guide (previously Materia Medica). It's importance to the field of homeopathy is evident in the fact that it's a standard text for many a homeopathic colleges around the world and its inclusion in professional homeopathic repertorization software used by practitioners in the field alongside historic works like that of Kent, Boericke, Phatak. Additionally thousands of medical professionals (alternative and mainstream) around the world have studied with him such as Luc De Shepper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_De_Schepper

Software

CARA - http://www.miccant.com/isisvision/rep_murphy.shtml | http://www.miccant.com/isisvision/index.shtml

Radar - http://www.archibel.com/113+M532d1b5b047.html

MacRepertory - http://www.kenthomeopathic.com/macrepertory.html

Links and posts

The Japan Royal Academy of Homeopathy - http://www.rah-uk.com/E_lecturers-overseas.html

Holistic and Homeopathic Resource Center, Cairo - http://www.h2rc2.com/Homeopathy/Homeopathy/ProfCourse.html | http://www.h2rc2.com/Homeopathy/Homeopathy/HomeoHistEgypt.html

Appears in the upcoming documentary on Homeopathy, interviewed during his treatment of patients in Haiti http://www.blinddogfilms.com/homeopathy/ | http://vimeo.com/12039816

http://www.indiaspace.com/homeopathy/eileen.htm

http://homeoresearch.blogspot.com/2010/01/murphy-repertory.html

Robin Murphy cited as source - http://wikipeutics.wikispaces.com/search/view/robin+murphy

Online CV's showing study with Murphy - http://www.universaldancer.com/CV.html | http://www.pathways.cu.edu.eg/CVs/NCW-CV/Dr.%20Hanaa%20Shams%20CV.htm

Listing of educational materials by Murphy - http://www.minimum.com/p7/engine/auth.asp?n=288

Homeotimes article reference - http://www.homoeotimes.com/august04/html/heklalava.htm

Quoting Murphys texts - http://medicinegarden.com/store/copy/fe_foxglove.html

Murphy texts reference - http://www.ewildagain.org/Homeopathy/homeopathictips.htm

Numerous Google Book reference search citations - http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bks%3A1&q=robin+murphy+nd&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=robin+murphy+nd&gs_rfai=&fp=927ed357e21039b4

http://www.amazon.com/review/RO068QZB4GYQV

And yes it may sound like an "ad hominem" attack or rebuttal but the truth is if you have never tried to prescribe or utilize a repertory to compare you have no idea how important this work is to the field. I can type in the names of several notable Homeopaths into Google News and nothing comes up, not because they aren't important to the field. We are talking about a smaller alternative field non-mainstream field. My response may have come of a bit rough but the point is without a familiarity of the field a few standard net searches alone can't qualify who is and who isn't notable in that field. A blatant example is the person who marked this article for deletion and JFW negates an published endorsement of Robin Murphy as "prominent" from a book by the Vice President of the National Center for Homeopathy with "doubtful". Again it sounds like users Drmies and XE (who?) aren't able to make a proper informed judgment on Homeopathy. How can you say from the outside who is important to those inside?

Noted modern homeopaths and authors Google News search

Luc De Schepper - http://www.google.com/search?q=Luc%20De%20Schepper&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&tab=wn

Vithoulkas, George - http://www.google.com/search?q=Vithoulkas%2C%20George&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

Dana Ullman - http://www.google.com/search?q=Dana%20Ullman&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

Jeremy Sherr - http://www.google.com/search?q=Jeremy%20Sherr&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbs=nws:1&source=og&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wn

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_homeopaths

• Delete, per Agricola44. Nsk92 (talk) 02:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Questionable notability, even in the field in question. Perhaps more needs to be done to provide comprehensive information about the field (as the above extensive "argument" seems to be suggesting) but without better sources I can't see this article (person) meeting notability guidelines. Stalwart111 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of independent and reliable sources that can attest to the subject's notability. WP:FRINGE and WP:GNG are more relevant than WP:PROF. In particular the sentence in WP:FRINGE that "it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects" seems highly relevant in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2010 (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.