Talk:Cyriac Abby Philips

Notability
you might want to nominate this for deletion since you doubt notability. — hako9 (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi my friendhako9, thanks for replying. I think I'm on the fence with this one. Maybe you could find a few more third-party citations. If you think I'm wrong, by all means remove the tag. I'm simply not sure. Best regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not going to remove the tag for obvious reasons. I think scmp, the print, and the week satisfy reliable + independent + significant coverage criteria, on their own. Other sources could be considered primary/trivial but WP:NOTEWORTHY nonetheless. I wouldn't have created the article otherwise. Please don't remove the tag now. Let another reviewer reach their own independent conclusion, if you you don't want to move forward with afd. Appreciate your opinion though. Prima facie, looks like a lot of sources are trivial, though I am confident it would pass notability. — hako9 (talk) 07:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

This Scientist's Work is Highly Relevant
Dr. Philips has had tremendous impact on the critical analysis of health claims from traditional medicine. This is important because he does not simply show it does not work, he shows that it can be dangerous. Because of this, he has faced significant criticism from the alternative medicine community. However, his work is peer reviewed, he has significant presence in social media, and is highly regarded by skeptics, critics of alternative medicine and the medical community. He is well known and more relevant that many with Wikipedia entries. Providing a truthful account of his work on Wikipedia will not just provide credibility to his messaging, it will save lives. Kevinfolta (talk) 11:02, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * account on Wikipedia is not at all truthful. Cyriac keeps commenting on people and later apologises for his comments and this has not been documented anywhere Jack.bobo.786 (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Then find reliable sources and add to the text of the article citing those sources. And do not label major changes as "minor edits". -- Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I very much approve of Xdwev vfre2wwd's reversion of the lead back to the version of 21 March 2024. It explains who Philips is and what he does so much better than the other versions. -- Toddy1 (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)