Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcanum corallinum


 * 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. Whether and where to redirect it to is a decision best taken editorially by subject-matter experts, I'm not sure that we have a consensus here for that.  Sandstein  11:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Arcanum corallinum

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The entry itself contains gibberish and no discernable chemical would be so produced. It's been an orphan since orphan detection (2009). The only reference is now a dead link. I do not object to "alchemy/alternative medicine" pages, but this page doesn't actually contain any information at all about whether the substance named exists. Riventree (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Alchemy.--Раціональне анархіст (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge or Significantly Expand Expand and Link Keep  The New Encyclopedia; or, Universal dictionary ofarts and sciences [sic .] Pharmacopceia Bateana, click the hypertext to go to page 306. It appears, through some further research, that this is a very antiquated description of how to produce Mercury(II) oxide. I would personally expand the article to include the older references (and not just cut and paste them which is what our current article consists of), then cross link between the two articles. WookieeV (talk) 18:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * In fact, it appears that Mercury(II) oxide already gives a nod to the alchemical origins of the compound by listing Maslama al-Majriti in the History heading. A quick glance over Maslama's page shows that he describes a process almost identical to the more recent sourcing we have found.  I am going to clean up and expand the Arcanum corallinum page, then link it to both Mercury(II) oxide and Maslama al-Majriti as a "see also:" in the History/Pseudo-Majriti sections respectively unless I hear an objection.  Regardless, this needs to be removed from deletion debate since there is clearly significance.   WookieeV (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Article has been fully updated and de-orphaned. Basis for original AfD is now a nullity and should be retracted.  WookieeV (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Delete The miniscule amount of actual content in this page can be put into a sentence or two on Mercuric Oxide, including the "Alternate name" on the data page. That would obviate the usefulness of this page completely.

Riventree (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This compound is distinctly different than Mercuric Oxide, as explained in the article. Arcanum corallinum is an archaic medical treatment addressed, at length, in numerous medical/alchemical encyclopedias.  Mercuric Oxide is incredibly toxic and only the first stage of producing Arcanum Corallinum.  Including it in Mercuric Oxide would be incorrect and, in fact, grossly misleading.  Even if we ignored the fact that the article meets WP:N, has been de-orphaned, cited, expanded, and is at least qualified as a alternative medicine stub, your interest in merging or redirecting this page negates the original nomination for deletion.  Please see (WP:BEFORE).  Usefulness, or the lack thereof (which has not been demonstrated), is not an absolute criteria for inclusion in wikipedia.  Students of medieval/pre-modern medicine, alternative medicine, alchemical historians, etc could/would find a great deal of merit and information in this page.  Personal bias against alternative medicine is hardly a reason for deleting a page which meets wikipedia's article requirements.   WookieeV (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N ORTH A MERICA 1000 17:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Still delete. The "dressup" that's been done on the page includes two references that are just word lookups in wiktionary - apparently to get the "refs" count up, since they should be links, not references. Further, someone's marked it "B" quality, apparently also in defense of the page, because it doesn't meet the requirements for that either, even in the alternative medicine definitions. Lastly it's hard to determine if the lately added contributions are WP:SOCK material or not. Delete.

Riventree (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
 * KeepNumber of references are immaterial to whether or not to delete a wikipedia page... All of nominator's arguments speak to the quality of the page, not to whether or not it should be kept. If one feels strongly they should be links and not references on the latin text, go ahead and change it to improve the article quality.  That does nothing to change the fact that the page should be kept.  Even a downgrade to stub status (also well within an editor's purview) would not negate the validity of the inclusion of the page; I think there is some confusion about what AfD is for, on the nominator's part.  If we were to delete every page that was short on references and a stub, there would be far, far fewer Wikipedia pages.  There are other forums and methods for addressing every argument raised- this debate has yet to see a valid argument for deletion.  WookieeV (talk) 02:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Redirect to Mercury(II) oxide and add a section "use in traditional medicine." The level of instruction in this article is non-encyclopedic as Wikipedia is not a medical textbook. However, it seems worth incorporating a small part of this history in our description of the chemical compound. Piboy51 (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I originally agreed with that concept, Piboy51, but through expanding the article I realized that that would be extremely misleading. Only the first half of the process to make this apparent compound results in [Mercury(II) oxide].  The mercuric oxide (which is incredibly toxic at that stage) is then further refined into an entirely different end product.  It is not an archaic description of creating mercuric oxide. WookieeV (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mercury(II) oxide It isn't clear to me how it is different from mercuric oxide. It sounds like it is mercuric oxide that is distilled with water and vinegar. It would still be mercuric oxide after that. BakerStMD T&#124;C 15:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
 * While I may be seriously missing something and should defer to the physician here, but I'm not sure how tartarized ETOH is water and vinegar... I was under the impression that the secondary process deoxidized the mercuric oxide, thus rendering it 'safe', quotes used solely because I have no idea what this compound would actually do to a person now, but it seems unlikely it would rapidly poison you and destroy nephrotic function if it was so widely considered a treatment for medicinal use in pre-modern medicine. It is my understanding that straight out mercuric oxide is exceptionally toxic and is used in making batteries; I am drawing this understanding directly from the page people are voting we redirect an alternative medicine stub to...  WookieeV (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2015 (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.