RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Hippocrates Health Institute

Hippocrates Health Institute | Result: Keep

Hippocrates Health Institute (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. Article is a stub for nearly 7 years, and this seems to be more of a newspaper type style of one singular death. I don't see any missional information at side of this. The fact no one has edited it in 5+ years before the template was placed probably shows no one cares about it also. Andrew5 (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

   You don't see anything missional about the organization selling detox-19, a triplet of homeopathic 'remedies' for COVID-19? 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 01:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

   You didn't put it in. Insert it if you want that to count as a reason, @Serene. Andrew5 (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

2. While missional I agree that this is too brief. Since it hasn't been expanded in 7 years it is way past time to delete.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

   What advantage does deleting information about a quack-den do to people who may be googling for info about said quack den? Like there's not a lot to being an alt med hole that murdered a child patient. It doesn't take ten paragraphs to explain that. You want me to take a field trip and learn who works there, take some pictures of whatever fake medicine they're selling? Why? Why expand-or-delete? They're a real business so you have to stick to provable facts to not get sued for defamation. You're not magically going to find more, and there's not any reason to have less either. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

   The notability, IMO, is borderline enough to where I would actually have nominated it on AFD on Wikipedia had I not been blocked and globally locked. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

   We only care about notability here inasmuch as it represents a distraction from the mission. This doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. It belongs on a page about alt med and the dangers it poses. Like rationalwiki. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 18:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Keep

1. Small article with sufficient information is fine. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 16:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
2. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 02:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
3. -Flandres (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
4. Cataloging small-scale dangers to patient health through pseudoscience is a better use of a page than most of what we do. I definitely stand by the use for this page. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
5. It's short but it's not a stub. U see no reason to delete it. Spud (talk)

   I assume you meant “I”. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 01:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

6. Short and to the point. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 19:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Goat

• I would like to compliment Serene for adding the COVID information. Still leaning towards deletion, but at this point it's bordering on being on mission. Andrew5 (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
• Just a few footnotes I've found Googling this place:
  • According to this, the institute links back to an immigrant named Ann Wigmore who helped popularize the raw foodism ideas of Maximilian Bircher-Benner in the United States. Apparently there is a "Hippocrates Diet" centered around raw food that links to her. However, the institute split from Wigmore in 1987.
  • Prior to the split, however, Wigmore was noted for various quackery. Such as promoting a "wheatgrass regime" (page 41) to supposedly cure cancer, and apparently getting sued successfully twice, once for claiming that her "energy enzyme soup" could combat AIDS, and once for claiming that her program could eliminate the need for insulin in diabetics and immunization in children. There's other fun stuff in the Wiki article.
  • Generally speaking, split aside, the institute is still best known still for advocating raw foodism and raw food "detox retreats", as its Tripadvisor reviews indicate, and as a New York Times article also notes. It is not surprising that this comes with occasional health quackery. I'm neutral about the RW article personally, but if the consensus leans towards delete, it may be better to merge with the raw foodism article instead.
  • As a final side note, the institute has certainly managed to get some strange puff pieces in various news places. Carrots as an aphrodisiac, Times of London, what the fuck? PanGalacticGargleBlaster (talk) 03:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

  Their official website has stuff about a Hippocrates diet, which as far as I can tell is still about raw food. They’re also still doing stuff with wheatgrass, so it seems they haven’t strayed far from their roots. 𝒮𝑒𝓇𝑒𝓃𝑒 ^talk 04:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)