| Revision as of 12:03, 3 March 2007 editVanished user (talk | contribs)15,602 edits →[]: revise← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:44, 4 March 2007 edit undoNescio (talk | contribs)11,956 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| *'''Comment''' a lot of the comments are about POV, but that should be fixed with a rewrite and not a delete, in fact it would be good to hear from actual editors of the page before making a final decision on deletion (so far I'm the only one who's given my opinion among those who have worked longtime on the page). I want to point out that there is actually something called Classical Homeopathy, and it is not a bogus concept invented by 'User:Homy'. A Google search gives lots of hits for Classical Homeopathy, and it is also known as Hahnemannian Homeopathy. Perhaps the article should just be rewritten to NPOV and then renamed ] and that will solve it? The concept is established within the homeopathic community and thats why I think it deserves a separate article, here are a couple of references, the first is actually quite critical and then it is worth considering this before making a final decision I think ] 11:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC) | *'''Comment''' a lot of the comments are about POV, but that should be fixed with a rewrite and not a delete, in fact it would be good to hear from actual editors of the page before making a final decision on deletion (so far I'm the only one who's given my opinion among those who have worked longtime on the page). I want to point out that there is actually something called Classical Homeopathy, and it is not a bogus concept invented by 'User:Homy'. A Google search gives lots of hits for Classical Homeopathy, and it is also known as Hahnemannian Homeopathy. Perhaps the article should just be rewritten to NPOV and then renamed ] and that will solve it? The concept is established within the homeopathic community and thats why I think it deserves a separate article, here are a couple of references, the first is actually quite critical and then it is worth considering this before making a final decision I think ] 11:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| **'''Comment in reply''' I don't think anyone's arguing that an article on it might not be appropriate at some point, just that this one has no merit because there's no NPOV material in it not covered at ]. I mean, is there anything in the present article usable as a basis for the new one that couldn't just be copied from ] with better result? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC) | **'''Comment in reply''' I don't think anyone's arguing that an article on it might not be appropriate at some point, just that this one has no merit because there's no NPOV material in it not covered at ]. I mean, is there anything in the present article usable as a basis for the new one that couldn't just be copied from ] with better result? ] <sup>]</sup> 12:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Merge''' in its current form the article does not warrant a separate page. If one is able to really discuss ''classical homeopathy'' (which does exist) with sufficient ] and without violating ], ] I have no problem with such an article. Clearly that is not the case today.<font color="green"> ]</font><sup><i><font color="blue"><small>]</small></font></i></sup> 13:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:44, 4 March 2007
Classical homeopathy
- Classical homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Possible POV fork of Homeopathy, though, to be fair, there are strong opinions on Homeopathy, and it may just be that only one side edited it. However, in any case, the article admits the subject is almost undefinable as seperate to Homeopathy, except that it's somehow better than more general homeopathy. Should become a redirect, I think. Adam Cuerden 17:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- keep I am one of the editors of the page, it is an old page and it has been worked on by a lot of people, but it needs a major rewrite and it could also be shortened. There is a list of "To do" items in the article's talk page, this is a good start, I think, and I think everyone should read those before maing a decision here, but I will of course accept the decision of the majority and some of what Adam Cuerden says is also valid Pernambuco 19:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: Perhaps a sensible thing would be to suggest the talk page be kept if the main article is deleted? It doesn't look notable, but if it could be shown to be, the talk page might be helpful in future. Adam Cuerden 19:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Article was started by Homy after a POV dispute on Talk:Homeopathy. As far as I can tell, there is no difference between "classical" homeopathy and the garden-variety homeopathy described at Homeopathy. If there are reputable sources that state otherwise, deletion may not be in order, but the article is still a POV-fest. I also think that complex homeopathy and clinical homeopathy should be nominated for deletion as they were created by the same user for (presumably) the same reasons. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete This looks like a version more favorable to the field's legitimacy that Homeopathy. Anything about the history of homeopathy found here can be added to the article Homeopathy. I was surprized to see the article claim that homeopathic remedies, essentially water because of the high dilutions, can cure cancer without surgery. Edison 20:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As far as I can tell it is just a POV version of the Homeopathy article. Without a single word of criticism, if there is any quality content it can be merged into the main article. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Article is massively POV. Take away the POV and you get the current Homeopathy page. --Charlene 00:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment a lot of the comments are about POV, but that should be fixed with a rewrite and not a delete, in fact it would be good to hear from actual editors of the page before making a final decision on deletion (so far I'm the only one who's given my opinion among those who have worked longtime on the page). I want to point out that there is actually something called Classical Homeopathy, and it is not a bogus concept invented by 'User:Homy'. A Google search gives lots of hits for Classical Homeopathy, and it is also known as Hahnemannian Homeopathy. Perhaps the article should just be rewritten to NPOV and then renamed Hahnemannian Homeopathy and that will solve it? The concept is established within the homeopathic community and thats why I think it deserves a separate article, here are a couple of references, the first is actually quite critical On Pseudo-Classical homeopathy (Dr. Rajesh Shah, Editorial, "Homeopathy Times") and then Is Hahnemannian Homeopathy doomed to go in to oblivion again? (Prof. George Vithoulkas) it is worth considering this before making a final decision I think Pernambuco 11:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Comment in reply I don't think anyone's arguing that an article on it might not be appropriate at some point, just that this one has no merit because there's no NPOV material in it not covered at Homeopathy. I mean, is there anything in the present article usable as a basis for the new one that couldn't just be copied from Homeopathy with better result? Adam Cuerden 12:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge in its current form the article does not warrant a separate page. If one is able to really discuss classical homeopathy (which does exist) with sufficient WP:RS and without violating WP:NPOV, WP:OR I have no problem with such an article. Clearly that is not the case today. Nomen Nescio 13:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)