Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Materia Medica Pura
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Materia Medica Pura
Crufty, unencyclopedic list. Adam Cuerden talk 13:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete No need for list and all other pertinent information already appears on the author's Wiki article. StuartDouglas 13:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep 200 year old books that are still in print, 18000+ GHits on the exact name. The article needs tidying up but regardless of my thoughts on the subject these are notable publications. Nuttah68 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per Adam's reasoning. Skinwalker 13:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. This article aids navigation for topics related to homeopathy (despite my or others' personal opinions on the subject). I have changed the format of the list so that it is more compact. I could find nothing in the Samuel Hahnemann article that duplicates this, so I am unsure what to make of StuartDouglas's statement. Could you please explain? -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Black Falcon (talk • contribs) 06:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC).
- I suppose it's mostly the list being objected to - for one thing, almost all the articles linked don't mention Homeopathic use anyway. Perhaps we could just cut it? It doesn't leave much of an article, but it might be expandable later. Adam Cuerden talk 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe in homeopathy and am actually surprised at how widespread it is (if the number of 100,000 practicioners and up to 500 million patients is to be believed) Despite that, the Materia Medica Pura is a major work in the homeopathic field, which I believe should be included per WP:FRINGE (am I wrong to label homeopathy a fringe practice?). The list is an essential part of the work (a "compilation of reports") and I believe it is certainly better than classifying all existing articles in Category:Homeopathic remedies. I thought of suggesting a compromise of leaving the list, but not linking to any articles, but that defeats the purpose of wikilinking, which is to aid navigation. Even if the article on "arsenic", for instance, does not mention anything about homeopathy, having it linked would still aid a reader of this article. -- Black Falcon 07:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I think you'd have to either have much more information than the list, or, I don't know, give examples of one or two. Just saying "All these things are mentioned" is cruft. It'd be like giving a list of everything in Linnaeus' taxonomy, only less useful, and probably less interesting. Adam Cuerden talk 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Normally I would agree. My reasoning in this case is this: as this is a "collection of reports", listing them doesn't seem to qualify as indiscriminate (I assume that's what you meant by "cruft"). It's like listing every minister in a cabinet or every province in a country. I'm inclined to see it kept as it's a complete list (I don't take incompleteness as a criterion for deletion, but completeness is certainly a plus). A complete accounting of homeopathic "remedies" should exist somewhere and homeopathy is already too long, so... -- Black Falcon 08:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- But this isn't a complete list. This is a complete list of the remedies in one book. There seem to be quite a lot of other, similar books, though not created by the founder, and no doubt have lots more medicines in them. Adam Cuerden talk 09:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm ... In that case, maybe it is better to delete the list. But then, that would leave the article with just three sentences. Perhaps this article ought to be merged into Materia medica as a short three-sentence section? -- Black Falcon 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I think Materia Medica is mainly on the non-Homeopathic side. What about Homeopathic repertory, though that's a pretty bad article. Adam Cuerden talk 17:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmm ... In that case, maybe it is better to delete the list. But then, that would leave the article with just three sentences. Perhaps this article ought to be merged into Materia medica as a short three-sentence section? -- Black Falcon 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- But this isn't a complete list. This is a complete list of the remedies in one book. There seem to be quite a lot of other, similar books, though not created by the founder, and no doubt have lots more medicines in them. Adam Cuerden talk 09:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Normally I would agree. My reasoning in this case is this: as this is a "collection of reports", listing them doesn't seem to qualify as indiscriminate (I assume that's what you meant by "cruft"). It's like listing every minister in a cabinet or every province in a country. I'm inclined to see it kept as it's a complete list (I don't take incompleteness as a criterion for deletion, but completeness is certainly a plus). A complete accounting of homeopathic "remedies" should exist somewhere and homeopathy is already too long, so... -- Black Falcon 08:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure. I think you'd have to either have much more information than the list, or, I don't know, give examples of one or two. Just saying "All these things are mentioned" is cruft. It'd be like giving a list of everything in Linnaeus' taxonomy, only less useful, and probably less interesting. Adam Cuerden talk 08:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I don't believe in homeopathy and am actually surprised at how widespread it is (if the number of 100,000 practicioners and up to 500 million patients is to be believed) Despite that, the Materia Medica Pura is a major work in the homeopathic field, which I believe should be included per WP:FRINGE (am I wrong to label homeopathy a fringe practice?). The list is an essential part of the work (a "compilation of reports") and I believe it is certainly better than classifying all existing articles in Category:Homeopathic remedies. I thought of suggesting a compromise of leaving the list, but not linking to any articles, but that defeats the purpose of wikilinking, which is to aid navigation. Even if the article on "arsenic", for instance, does not mention anything about homeopathy, having it linked would still aid a reader of this article. -- Black Falcon 07:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose it's mostly the list being objected to - for one thing, almost all the articles linked don't mention Homeopathic use anyway. Perhaps we could just cut it? It doesn't leave much of an article, but it might be expandable later. Adam Cuerden talk 05:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Whatever I may think of homeopathy, per Nuttah68's reasoning a 200-year-old book that is still in print today and has so many ghits is notable. I ran a search for its title on Google scholar, hoping to find some scholarly reviews of the book that could be used to fill out the content of the article (now that the listcruft has been removed) and didn't find any, but I don't find that conclusive: it just means that GS is not the right source for that kind of citation. I did find 157 hits, primarily works about homeopathy that mention MMP, so it is notable academically as well as popularly. —David Eppstein 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Clearly notable - on par with the Bible for alternative medicine devotees. Needs some fleshing out, but that shouldn't be hard since there are at least a half dozen full-length books devoted to this work alone. Irene Ringworm 03:39, 15 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.
