Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allopathic medicine


 * 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 of the debate was keep. --Ngb?!? 22:42, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Allopathic medicine
Inappropriate tone and content of the article and vandalism of the discussion page.

The appropriate content for the page "allopathic medicine" is already covered by the page "medicine." If anything, this page should say "see medicine." As an encylopedia article, it should discuss the topic of allopathic or mainstream medicine. I don't think there should be an article discussing just the roots of the word. That is appropriate to a dictionary entry - not an encyclopedia.

The article currently consists of a criticism of homeopathy - which should go to the homeopathy page or another page. In the discussion page, several people made reference to the common usage of the term allopathic, including how it was used in the dictionary and by the National Institutes of Health. Several of the references and comments that were brought up in the discussion page were deleted from the page. This vandalism made it difficult to have a civil discussion about the content. .


 * Keep. Hi, Com-Cast guy! You tried - and failed - to make this same case on the talk page of the article months ago: the last time the talk page has been edited is July 2005. A few notes: [1] you've put the deletion page in the wrong place (it belongs in Articles for Deletion, not "Miscellaneous deletion", and it shouldn't have a colon in its title). [2] discussion is not vandalism. [3] vandalism is not a reason for deletion. [4] as pointed out to you many times in your many incarnations, "allopathic medicine" is not the same thing as "medicine". - Nunh-huh 06:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I agree with Nunh-hunh. This article explains exactly what the term means and where it comes from. It contains little discussion of homeopathy. The only motives for trying to delete it that I can imagine are dishonest and proselytizing ones. The article should stay. alteripse 10:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with homeopathy. The terminology is purely a product of the homeopathic doctrine, no more and no less. JFW | T@lk  22:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I share your view of the term, but think we should have an article that explains exactly where it came from so people understand it should not be used as a synonym for scientific or conventional medicine. I would vote for keeping it distinct from the homeopathy article. alteripse 23:12, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I too think that this should be kept separate from homeopathy as the term is in common use among adherents of many different forms of alternative medicine despite it's being 'coined' by Hahnemann. Doc 15:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mel Rader. Allopathic medicine is commonly used to mean conventional medicine - and this article is way out of line.


 * Keep. Although I agree with JFW's statement, the Homeopathy article is currently overloaded. Edwardian 19:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep per Alteripse. --Ngb?!? 22:38, 15 October 2005 (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.