Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arsenicum album

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 in the sense of "not delete". There is no immediately apparent consensus as to whether or not the article should be merged to one of a number of proposed other articles, but that is a matter for editors to work out. Sandstein (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arsenicum album

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}
Arsenicum album (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

POV Fork Content fork that is inadvertantly (WP:AGF) Homeopathic POV of Arsenic trioxide TableMannersC·U·T 02:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I think that would require deleting a lot of V/RS content. —Whig (talk) 02:43, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, that is usually why POV Forks are created. TableMannersC·U·T 02:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment As I said, I don't think this article is treating the same subject as Arsenic trioxide. —Whig (talk) 02:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As a homeopathic remedy, this is well-known and widely used, by homeopathic practitioners and the general public. Arion 3x3 (talk) 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment From the article, it is a preparation, rather than a pure compound. So, I've removed the wikilink to arsenic trioxide. If someone can find a source which explains how the leach arsenic is in the form of arsenic trioxide, that should be readded. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article has more specific information to homeopathy than Arsenic trioxide has, though it does make sense to have some summary info about the homeopathic applications of this medicine at the Arsenic trioxide article. Dana Ullman Talk 03:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Rubbish, biased article, on a notable, verifiable topic. Hesperian 03:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to the "uses" section of Arsenic trioxide. Most of the "Scientific Evidence" section is POV fishing for credibility, but it Arsenic trioxide does have some notability within the homeopathic community. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 03:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC).
    • One could argue, of course, that Arsenicum album is not actually a "use" of Arsenic trioxide, since homeopathy works on the principle of diluting the "active ingredient" until there is most likely not even a single molecule of it in a dosage. The link between the two therefore seems rather tenuous. Hesperian 03:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment an edit is worth considering in the context of this discussion.[1] This edit removed "(also known as [[arsenic trioxide]])" from the article. TableMannersC·U·T 03:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep reason given is too flimsy and probably pejorative Peter morrell Peter morrell 04:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please see WP:POVFORK. TableMannersC·U·T 04:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Quoting from that guideline: Since what qualifies as a "POV fork" is itself based on a POV judgement, do not refer to forks as "POV" — except in extreme cases of repeated vandalism. —Whig (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Okay, thanks. I just struck POV fork in the Afd description. TableMannersC·U·T 05:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Obviously enough sources, and obviously should not be part of the trioxide main article because too much material. An article on its use in homeopathy is not POV, just nearly an entirly different subject from its use in chemistry and industry. This article also needs to be NPOV, and describing its use in homeopathy in an NPOV way is not a POV fork. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge Merge and redirect. The content could easily be included in Arsenic trioxide#uses or Arsenic trioxide#Medical applications. The trioxide article is not that long. Including the homeopathic preperation in trioxide article will help ensure that the content remains WP:NPOV. Avoiding content disputes by having these forks is not the way to go. Whether or not the creation of the homeopathic article in August of 2007 is intentional "consensus-dodging" does not matter. While the article originally stated "Arsenicum album (also known as arsenic trioxide) is a frequently-used homeopathic substance,"[2] and it has since been corrected that Arsenicum album is a very dilute solution of Arsenic trioxide, the preperation of Arsenicum album belongs in a section of the Arsenic trioxide article. TableMannersC·U·T 05:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Arsenicum album is not a dilute solution of Arsenic trioxide, in potencies above 12C there is not a single molecule of Arsenic trioxide in the remedy. —Whig (talk) 05:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Homeopathy is crap, but unfortunately it is notable. The article should exist and be NPOV so people know what they are getting when they take the stuff and they know what the scientific opinion is. --Bduke (talk) 05:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment You keep repeating yourself. Arsenicum album is not water, it is a homeopathic remedy. The ingredients used to prepare Arsenicum album include arsenic trioxide and water. Also lactose, and sugar... —Whig (talk) 05:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment It is as indistinguishable from water as distilled and UV energized agate juice (water once in contact with agates but distilled and exposed to UV radiation). See and
Thanks. TableMannersC·U·T 17:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I'm not really understanding the agate thing, that sounds like original research and this doesn't seem appropriate to debate in an AfD. —Whig (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. But remove all the primary source refs. The New Scientist ref is secondary and acceptable. Acleron (talk) 12:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Once you do that, you have a stub that should be merged with dilution and succussion or the "uses" section of Arsenic trioxide. TableMannersC·U·T 17:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no reason to remove primary sources. Secondary sources may be best to demonstrate notability, but primary sources are both allowed and useful. --Bduke (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to water. That's what it is. Make a mention of it in Arsenic trioxide#uses SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
    • Bollocks; one might just as well redirect eucharist to bread. It might be 100% water by composition, but as long as enough people think of it as something else, then conceptually it is not the same thing. Hesperian 00:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Heck, while you're at it you may as well redirect rain to water too. "That's what it is." Hesperian 04:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep due to acronym laden nomination, I am unable to appreciate the reason why it should be removed (see also: avoid cryptic language) Tarinth (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete A. it's on a single homeopathic treatment, of which there are literally thousands B. There is very little that could be said on it. C. The only section that would give it notability - if true - is a ridiculously biased "Scientific evidence" section created by User:Danaullman/Dana Ullman, "America's foremost promoter of homeopathy", and is straight POV-pushing. Adam Cuerden talk 00:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Keep It's been shown it relaly is a core homeopathic treatment, and we can probably get past the Dana Ullman problem. Adam Cuerden talk 10:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Not liking an editor is not grounds to delete. —Whig (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge or delete for the love of God, chemistry, or common sense. Arsenicum album IS arsenic trioxide diluted to nil, and this content should be merged there. If we go down this patently ludicrous path, we will be endorsing potentially hundreds of content forks, including natrum muriaticum for table salt. Let's make a table of homeopathic remedies (titled something like "List of common homeopathic remedies preparations") and not allow these forks. Cool Hand Luke 01:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment I don't see a problem with there being a natrum muriaticum article if it is sufficiently notable. Wikipedia is not running out of space. Not as a fork of sodium chloride but regarding the homeopathic remedy prepared from sodium chloride. They are not the same, and the subject matter is different. —Whig (talk) 08:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete POV fork, "Scientific Evidence" section is neither Scientific nor Evidence. PouponOnToast (talk) 08:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete/Redir (to List of homeopathic preparations): citations are too tangential to establish notability (1 to dangers of "poorly-prepared" treatments of it, other 3 to ineffectiveness of homeopathic treatments generally). HrafnTalkStalk 10:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Note that substantial V/RS content has been deleted, but might be restored by another editor. —Whig (talk) 11:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge into a central Homeopathic remedies article (a main article to the existing Category:Homeopathic remedies). dab (𒁳) 11:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    "Remedies" has a built-in POV i.e. that these preparations are remedial. How about "preparations"? Hesperian 12:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • whatever... that's a bit like saying Australian Aboriginal deities has a built-in pov implicating theistic belief by calling them "deities"... dab (𒁳) 12:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      Yes, there would be some similarity, if "deity" implied not only an object of worship but an object of worship that must actually exist, which it doesn't. On the other hand, it is surely a truism that remedies are remedial. Hesperian 12:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      Is "homeopathic remedies" a "term of art"? If so, then we should use it, cf. Christian Science. --Jim Butler(talk) 01:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      Point taken. But note the capital S. "Christian Science" is a proper noun denoting a religious teaching; "Christian science" is a common noun, and what and indeed if it denotes is a matter of opinion. "Homeopathic remedy" is much more like the latter than the former. There is no obligation for us to accept the terminology of homeopaths, if it is at odds with our core principles. I say the proper course of action is to entitle the article using "preparations", and to give it a lead that says "This is a list of homeopathic preparations, or "remedies" in the terminology of homeopaths." Hesperian 04:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
      I think we'll need to consult V RS's to determine whether and to what extent "homeopathic remedies" is a term of art. If it is the accepted traditional usage in homeopathy, we should use it. As you say, all we have to do is be clear in the lead what it does and doesn't mean. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not about "truth" but about knowledge. This is information -- knowledge -- about this homeopathic substance. Many people may want to look it up and see what it says.--Blue Tie (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redir to List of homeopathic preparations, per reasoning by Cool Hand Luke. — BillC talk 21:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect to Arsenic trioxide. This article is 90% complete bollocks and the rest is trivial. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep or redirect to a list of homeopathic remedies. I just added a source plainly establishing notability as a homeo remedy (says it's one of the 15 most important ones). See diff (two edits) here. Per Hesperian above, this redirect to water business is POINT-y. No problem with list of remedies, instead. But let's back off a bit on AfDing homeopathy articles, please, and instead ref-tag them and give them time to grow: Per WP:WEIGHT, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them". --Jim Butler(talk) 04:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Tilt? - Are you replying to me? The source I added (see diff above) did note denote temporary interest. It's a text for laypeople saying that in classical homeopathy, Arsenicum-whatever-it's-called is important in homeopathy according to a V RS on the subject. WP:N established, full stop, time to move on. To put it over the top, WP has endless articles on games, trivia, etc.; WP:NOTPAPER applies. --Jim Butler(talk) 07:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I assumed you were refering to citations to the Khuda-Buksh et. al. study that had recently been added. Looking at your dif, your citation would appear to be neither particularly WP:RS nor independent of the subject, so adds nothing to notability. HrafnTalkStalk 08:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No problemo, re citation. However, I don't get how a book for the public (DK publishing) by two MD homeopaths isn't an RS for our purposes. Don't homeopaths get to say what's important to a homeopath? And independent of the subject: it's a medicine, not a person...?? --Jim Butler(talk) 09:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, homeopaths get to say what's important to a homeopath -- but what's important to a homeopath isn't necessarilly important (i.e. notable) to wikipedia, hence the need for independent sources. It's part of a class of 'medicines' that the authors are promoting so, no, they aren't "independent". HrafnTalkStalk 12:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks Hrafn. I'm still not sure I agree with your take on "independent" here. The relationship between a modern doctor and a traditional medicine is not the same as that between, say, a song and the person who wrote it. It seems to me more like a case of a rock critic talking about a song, or a theologist talking about a longstanding tenet of her religion, and we use such sources all the time. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 20:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe you have incorrectly delineated the relationship. The relationship between a homeopath and the efficacy of homeopathic remedies is a matter of faith, not evidence, putting them in the same class as a theologian's relationship with tenets of their religion. That faith eliminates independence. HrafnTalkStalk 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for being patient here. I follow your argument, but am still not sure I agree. Sounds like you're raising the bar for independence a bit high with an overbroad "faith", especially in the case of daughter articles on very notable topics. As counterexamples that aren't too IAR-ish, I suspect I could find a number of articles that are series on obscure tenets of some religion or other. Instead I will just try and find a better source here. :-) If not, we can let it go to a list, not a big deal either way. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • 'Strong acceptance (a classification that would include advocacy), lacking evidence = faith' is hardly an "overbroad" definition. Just because a parent topic is notable does not make every daughter topic of it necessarily notable (and if they are not, then either room should be found for them in the parent article, or the topic should be dropped altogether -- WP:NOT#INFO). I suspect you could find a number of articles that violate pretty much any wikipedia policy, so finding such articles would not be legitimate "counterexamples". HrafnTalkStalk 03:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Can you cite any WP guideline or talk page supporting your "faith vs. evidence" formulation as a criterion for independence of sources? Thanks, Jim Butler(talk) 06:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • You're citing the wrong guideline -- "independence" isn't mentioned in WP:SOURCES but in WP:NOTE: "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject", where I would think "faith"/"strong acceptance lacking evidence" would normally be seen as a fairly unambiguous sign of "affiliation". HrafnTalkStalk 08:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • IMHO, your interpretation goes against the spirit of the guideline. The idea of needing "independent" sources is, for example, to avoid having someone non-notable quoting his self-published autobiography or press release as proof of notability. It does not mean that any one of millions of people who subscribes to a certain belief can't be used as a source regarding that belief. If you take your approach to its logical conclusion, you couldn't use any source coming from a doctor to show the notability of a medical topic, or from a physicist on a physics topic, from the government on a government topic, or from a church on a religious topic. What would that leave us? We could only use journalists as sources? (Except in articles about journalism, of course.) In reply to all the "merge with water or with arsenic oxide" comments, the notability of a homeopathic remedy has nothing to do with whether it works or whether it is made out of water. The notability comes from the attention that people give to it. We wouldn't merge this with water for the same reason that we wouldn't merge holy water with water. And there is a lot of attention given to this remedy; there is a wide literature discussing it, whether scientifically or not. Google books gives 812 hits for "arsenicum album".[3] --Itub (talk) 09:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No. My interpretation does not "mean that any one of millions of people who subscribes to a certain belief can't be used as a source regarding that belief" -- only that such sources cannot establish notability. ANY belief, no matter how obscure or non-notable, is likely to have books written about it by its true believers. It is only when that belief becomes sufficiently prominent to be written about by people outside that circle of true believers that it becomes in any way notable. HrafnTalkStalk 14:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I was talking specifically about establishing notability too, as I said in the next sentence. You are basically treating a group of thousands or even millions of people as if they were just one for purposes of "subject independence", which makes no sense in my opinion. Like I said, look at any advanced mathematics or physics topic and you'll find that all one can find regarding notability comes from the mathematicians and physicists themselves. You won't find many newspaper articles about spin tensors, and yet they are a notable topic in mathematical physics that you can find in many textbooks. Same with any homeopathic remedy: you can find it in the homeopathic textbooks. Whether it is science or witchcraft is completely irrelevant to the question of notability. --Itub (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • For Hrafn: No, I didn't cite the wrong guideline. Go back and read WP:NOTE, and see what it links to when it talks about independence. I agree with Itub, who has made the case much more clearly than I did. Since you haven't answered my question on whether any guideline or talk page supports your "belief = lack of independence" criterion, I'll assume it's a novel rule you're proposing we adopt on WP. Which you're free to do, but we're not bound to follow it on an ad-hoc basis here. Suggest you go to WT:N and WT:V and propose it there. regards, Jim Butler(talk) 22:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Your wikilink for "independence" is a pure easter egg -- Wikipedia:Verifiability#Sources does not discuss "independence". I have read WP:NOTE: it states "'Independent of the subject' excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. [Footnote:] Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large. See also: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations." What part of "but not limited to" did you fail to understand? And are you claiming that your Homeopathy authors don't have "a strong connection to" the subject of homeopathy generally, and homeopathic preparations specifically? WT:V is UTTERLY irrelevant to this point, and a "proposal" on WT:N isn't really necessary as I'm not proposing new policy, merely interpreting existing policy. HrafnTalkStalk 02:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • "Not limited to" isn't carte blanche. Your interpretation is, per Itub, a novel one and not without serious problems. Sorry if you think WP:NOTE is easter-eggy (quote): A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. (unquote) Like I said: if you have issues with WP:N, you should address them there. --Jim Butler(talk) 05:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per User:Jim Butler, and add to List of homeopathic preparations. Major homeopathic preparations would seem to pass notability (is there information available for a history section? that could be interesting) for stand-alone articles, and the minor ones can be adequately treated on a list. None of this precludes noting that mainstream scientific thought considers both the theory and the practice absolute bunkum. If consensus points to delete without a list, the space should be left bare - people searching for arsenicum album are not looking for information on the "catalyst" molecule. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 08:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I assume there are Project:Homeopathy people here? I see plenty of interest in creating a list under one name or another, but I do not want to start it using the "wrong" name. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 08:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Question: why would "major homeopathic preparations" "seem to pass notability"? This would seem to be a mere unsubstantiated assertion. HrafnTalkStalk 08:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment We're splitting it from homeopathy because the article is too long. Same as if we do a series on Shintoism, or Indian astrology or something. Anyway, agree with Eldereft, start with list and go from there. --Jim Butler(talk) 09:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment The list is a good idea regardless as many homeopathic remedies may be non-notable for a standalone article even if Arsenicum album is notable enough to have its own article. I do not think "homeopathic preparations" is a term in ordinary use. —Whig (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
          • Comment to Hrafn - on reading your comments I have decided to dilute my vote. An after school club discussing that my neighbors' kids have the best garage band ever would be both wrong and non-notable. Rolling Stone doing the same thing would just be wrong. Part of the problem with establishing notability of individual remedies is that many of the studies in the non-fringe journals study efficacy of several homeopathic "remedies", either in the same patient or across the study. This is good for establishing the unreliability of homeopathic "medicine" and deflecting criticism of misusing the system, but bad for establishing any particular dilution. This skeptical website indicates that a 1994 diarrhea study has been widely bandied about by promoters. As an inclusionist, I favor a fairly low notability bar; perhaps one criterion could be use in a methodologically sound study reviewed by the Cochrane Collaboration? Arsenicum album, so far as I can discern, would not pass this test.
On the larger issue of how to present homeopathic preparations, I say we should make sure that text is in accord with this meta-meta-analysis that states "there was no condition which responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control interventions. Similarly, there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo," and deal with notability casewise. Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 22:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It is quite simply a major homeopathic remedy; major means used a lot especially in deep chronic work. Homeopathic remedies can be classified as big and small according to their frequency of use and also their range of therapeutic applicability. Arsenicum scores big on both counts. There are probably only about 60 major remedies and these will appear in the list I am working on as requested by User:Filll currently in my sandbox, thank you Peter morrell 10:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you vote twice by mistake Peter? Anyway, when I voted merge, I did not mean we remove the content, only that it form a section of another article, and its name be redirected to this section of the other article. It would also appear in the list of homeopathic remedies/preparations that we are developing of course. Sixty sounds like a very reasonable number; I am just nervous about the number climbing much higher if we are not careful. By the compromise I proposed at the Thuja article, we would have paragraphs or sections about homeopathic use in each of the 60 or so relevant articles, but no more to prevent this from getting out of hand. It seems like a reasonable compromise to me, but what do I know?--Filll (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Urine? Why Urine? TableMannersC·U·T 03:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it's safe to say that in 1L of water, at least one molecule will have been urine at some point. •Jim62sch• 00:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps Jim was obliquely referring to "piss-prophecy, palmistry and magick,"p.33 in Philosophaster a Latin satirical comedy by Robert Burton, but using the more polite term 'urine.' Peter morrell 09:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Arsenic trioxide and redirect of course. I think before this becomes any worse, we need to come up with some rules of engagement, considered widely by the entire community interested in these things. Adam Cuerden proposed an Arbcomm ruling, which might not happen at this writing, by all appearances. As an alternative, I suggest that we consider convening a mediation and work on forging a Memorandum of Understanding or comparable document that all can sign on to, and then display as evidence of community consensus on homeopathically related article talk pages. Editors arguing tendentitiously and disruptively against the MoU would then be subject to normal administrative penalties. Hopefully we could come to some agreement and compromise about how to handle this situation so we can all be productive instead of fighting each other.--Filll (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redir to List of homeopathic preparations per Luke (1st choice) or Arsenic trioxide (2nd). There is no need to have a content fork for every preparation used in Homeopathy. KillerChihuahua?!? 07:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    Comment There seems to be some general confusion here about what a content fork is. When the subject matter is the same as another article, it is a content fork. No other article is about the homeopathic remedy Arsenicum album. It would be inappropriate to make more than a brief mention of it at Arsenic trioxide as the raw chemical is triturated and potentized to create the homeopathic remedy which contains little or no arsenic trioxide. —Whig (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Apologies, WP:FORK gives a different result to wp:fork (have I ever mentioned that case-sensitive lookup-results in wikipedia is idiotic).
    Comment So you are now saying this is a content fork of Homeopathy? Other editors have claimed it was a content fork of Arsenic trioxide which it isn't since the subject matter is different. —Whig (talk) 09:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Even though I do not believe in homeopathy, (I have been somewhat surprised at how otherwise reasonable and educated people do believe in it) I also do not see why this content should be removed or minimized. After all, this "Encyclopeida" lists practically every species of Pokemon and every moon in the Firefly Universe. Its not like we are spending tons of money publishing extra pages in a dead tree encyclopedia or that wikipedia is running out of electrons or space. Why not provide fair and neutral articles on homeopathic preparations since there is a pretty large group of people who would want to look such things up? Deleting or minimizing this just seems to me to injure the encyclopedia in terms of being an information source. --Blue Tie (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but it needs to be revised to explicitly remove the non-evidential medical information and pseudoscience claims. If someone wants to go to the wiki-well to find information on some product they see on the drugstore/chemist shelf, then they should be able to come here so they can learn that all they are pushing are sugar pills. Wiki is global so there are likely a lot of places in the world that are not actively questioning homeopathy as a valid medical practice; they should be able to come here to get the scientific facts about the product. Arsenic kills. Arsenicum album is candy. ThracianSlave (talk) 12:53, 1 February 2008 (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.