Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurum sulphuricum

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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:42, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Aurum sulphuricum

Aurum sulphuricum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article has no sources for any of the content that might make it notable.

• None of the sources talk about Russia. So every single claim about its importance in Russia is completely unverifiable and unsourced.
• "The characteristics of Aurum but the influence of sulphur is strong. There is a resemblance to Aurum sulphuricum as well" How could Aurum sulphuricum resemble itself? Because that link is talking about Aurum Sulfuratum. So, we have a non-notable, non-reliable source talking about a completely different homeopathic remedy.
• As for the other two cites, both link to a web-published article entitled "Kent's New Remedies" - I clicked to the introduction to the article. Now, my French isn't that good, but I can read enough to get the gist: The person who made the webpage went through a turn-of-the-century homeopath's papers, and typed up some that were never published, and do not appear in the standard homeopathic works.

In short, non-notable, inaccurate, and makes unverifiable claims. Even ignoring the POV-pushing, this is a pretty clear delete.

...And then I found this quote from the creator on the page he linked here:

Look, I'm fucked if I understand any of the science, but a room mate of mine had some he gto from Russia, was awesome shit. I could have the name wrong, but after googling all day this link I found appears to justify me belief it is correct.JJJ999 15:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I need to say more. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment- given you've inserted your reasons above others, I will do so too. As per my comments below, this article needs clean up, not deletion, and the name was one chosen by the chemistry students responsible for this stuff. I don't know of care whether it is more scientifically sound to call it sulphuricum, or sulphatum, or whatever. The stuff clearly exists, and does what the article says it does.JJJ999 03:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. References do not fulfill WP:RS. Unsubstantiated claims. --Rifleman 82 03:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep- This has been through 3 deletion prods/discussions/speedies in the last week, and it has survived all of them (during which th articles name was somewhat altered among other things), including a discussion by the WikiChem group, and addition of more sources and info. The improvements people have, and will continue to make, vis the article have occurred as expected. Not only is it a groundless delete for a prominent form of medicine, but it is too soon. If this deletion is not speedily removed, I must re-evaluate what I believe AfD policy to be, and assumedly I can renominate anything I lost the vote/discussion for less than a week ago. JJJ999 03:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chemistry#Aurum_sulfide.2C_Aurum_Sulfides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aurum_Sulfides JJJ999 03:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The outcome of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry was that the article did not belong at either Aurum sulfide or Aurum Sulfides. It did not survive any prod; the exact same article was simply recreated once and again. --Rifleman 82 03:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Anyway, isn't the point of Prod to see if it needs to go to the formal AFD process? Just because one person removed a few prods doesn't mean it should be speedy kept. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Clearly fails WP:RS, especially the reliable part. Of the impressive list of three references, two are repeats of each other and that reference is unintelligible. About a fourth of the article consists of a quote from the third reference, which makes nearly unintelligible claims. If there has been prior discussion of this article, I can't find it. The speedy delete was quickly converted within minutes to a prod by the same editor that added the speedy tag. The prod was removed by User:JJJ999 that made the above comment. The discussion page is similarly empty. eaolson 03:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Even if you could clean up the POV and find reliable sources, the topic is not notable. There is nothing that makes this remedy more important than the thousands of other homeopathic and alternative medicines on the market. --Art Carlson 06:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This same argument could apply to the handful of articles on other homeopathic remedies listed in Category:Homeopathic remedies. We should try to apply a consistent policy, one way or another. --Art Carlson 06:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• comment Adam Cuerden writes "The characteristics of Aurum but the influence of sulphur is strong. There is a resemblance to Aurum sulphuricum as well" How could Aurum sulphuricum resemble itself?"

-I wondered the exact same thing myself. "Because that link is talking about Aurum Sulfuratum." Aaah, that would explain it.:) So I vote for-

• delete because otherwise how would we know which info in it is accurate or not? I would have to take someone's word for it, and in the comment Adam found from JJJ999, he admits even he doesn't know how it works. It was full of spelling errors- not picking on anyone for that, but- so how do we know the actual text isn't in error? JJJ999 altered the article a bit for me to explain what was actually in it, he put 'sulphides' but I would have thought sulphides have to be of something. It says what the poor use instead of whatever it should be made from, but not what it should be made from. There are so few reliable sources and few/none which discuss it at length, we're literately groping in the dark. What Adam Cuerden found- that the source is comparing aurum sulfuratum to this, means this is not Aurum Sulfuratum (which is more well-known) as one might think. So, this page's title gets 52 unique google hits!Merkinsmum 10:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

• delete quickly. The sources admit to not being reliable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This fails to show the subjects notability, lacks reliable sources and fails to show verifiability. The article makes medicinal claims: "strong aspirin like effects" and "It is an important antipsychotic remedy." Scientific and medical claims in Wikipedia need strong sourcing, such as papers in respected refereed scientific journals, or science textbooks from reputable publishers. Otherwise the virtually unsourced Wikipedia article will itself be pointed to as proof of the efficacy and legitimacy of the remedy. Edison 17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Lacks reliable sources. There conceivably is some kind of popular idea or even a widespread misconception contained in this topic area, but the present article is no help whatever. Earlier in this AfD there is a suggestion that this article doesn't even have the right name for the homeopathic thing it is trying to discuss. Since there are no reliable sources, there is no way to correct this confusion. EdJohnston 19:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• The article doesn't actually say what substance it talks about; the references are useless. If we discovered what kind of a compound the article talks about, would it be worth merging? Probably not; homeopaths use pretty much every substance in their preparates. The verdict is unambiguous: delete. - Mike Rosoft 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I had prodded it as hopelessly confusing. At User:JJJ999's request, I looked again & finally figured out that it was a homeopathic remedy of partially defined composition intended to serve in some manner as a psychotherapeutic agent. I have a bias about the validity of such claims, so I removed the tag, & merely suggested rewriting to clarify. My feeling is it could be an article, if done from scratch with better sources properly translated, used according to whatever may be the standards of homeopathic pharamcology. DGG (talk) 06:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 10:09, 27 September 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.