Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Comment: Although I am neutral and also the creator of this page, I am still marking it for AfD as an editor feels that these article fails WP:GNG and is WP:SPAM (promotional) in nature. Please vote as deemed fit. Many thanks.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  06:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as creator has requested deletion —Мандичка YO 😜 07:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: My personal opinion is not to delete the article and have merely nominated this as an editor "feels" that this article fails WP:GNG and is WP:SPAM (promotional) in nature. Please don't take my nomination OR comment as the recommendation (either way) and use your own judgment. Thanks,  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  07:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment The comments above (about me, the 'other editor') are false. I indicated that the articles appear promotional and unencyclopedic, but did not say that it was WP:SPAM. Two admins agreed that while not necessarily failing the WP:GNG and WP:SPAM criteria, that those issues are separate to the actual reasons I indicated for redirecting the articles. Further background is available at User talk:Jeffro77/Archive2015, User talk:JamesBWatson and User talk:Bgwhite. This AfD has been lodged to make a point, despite the fact that the redirects were fine as they were, as already indicated by five editors prior to the AfDs (myself, a third opinion respondent, two admins, and another reverting editor).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is the point is to waste people's time? —Мандичка YO 😜 08:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect the first couple of sentences with a note to the effect that homeopathy is almost universally regarded as a form of psuedoscientific quackery to Central Council of Homoeopathy Act, 1973. Delete In its current form it clearly violates both WP:NFRINGE and WP:PROFRINGE. The article does not appear to meet the standards for coverage in GNG and certainly fails the higher standard found in NFRINGE. Discussing or referencing patently Fringe and Psuedoscientific subjects on Wikipedia is pretty strictly limited in order to prevent the project from being used to promote this kind of nonsense. See WP:FRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: as per Ad Orientem. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete article does nothing to establish notability - we need evidence of in-depth coverage in independent sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to Central Council of Homoeopathy; this article is similar to Diploma in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery.  Mini  apolis  22:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- this degree in quackery lacks substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. All the would be necessary is a sentence at the article for the issuing body saying that this is a thing they offer. Reyk  YO!  23:58, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete:- Sadly, no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 02:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of reliable independent secondary sources. I suppose that should make the article more powerful, but only if you believe in homeopathy. Guy (Help!) 08:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just imagine how good it would be if it had 0.0000001% of a reliable independent secondary source! Mr Potto (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Central Council of Homoeopathy. I don't see the notability needed to keep this as an article in itself, but as there's an article about the Central Council of Homoeopathy then it seems reasonable to describe the qualification that it awards in that article. Mr Potto (talk) 11:17, 18 May 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.

ANI

 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)