Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical homeopathy and Complex homeopathy

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 Redirect to Homeopathy. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-07 04:00Z

[edit] Clinical homeopathy and Complex homeopathy

Clinical homeopathy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Complex homeopathy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Two known POV splits from Homeopathy with very little of note that can be said about them. NNeither have been worked on significantly since the split (unlike the seperately-nominated Classical homeopathy.

I've done a little editing to remove their worst parts. Clinical homeopathy was the worst, praising three homeopaths to the sky (reference: themselves) and containing this bizarre little non-sequitor: "Books which describe clinical conditions could be used by both clinical and classical homeopaths, the clinical homeopath will value its worth just more." [1]

Complex homeopathy merely contained unbacked assertions about one Homeopath, an A. Vogel, mixed in with assertions of the common use of lengthy German terms that is not backed by the evidence of Google. For instance, searching for the supposedly common Laienhomöopathie, specifying English-only, gives only that wikipedia page [2] It is only slightly commoner in German.

Pretty clear delete. Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete assuming there's nothing to merge back. POV forks. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per the reasons I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Classical homeopathy. Skinwalker 23:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:SCI, WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NPOV Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 13:33, 4 March 2007 (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.