Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diploma 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 redirect to /Central_Council_of_Homoeopathy. Its not very clear that is much to merge from thus discussion but agreement that this is best discussed in the context of the central article. Spartaz Humbug! 09:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Diploma 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)  06:33, 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)
 * By listing this article as an AfD, you have voted FOR deletion. If you're neutral or against deletion, you should not nominate an article to be deleted, but discuss it with the other editor on the talk page. You should withdraw this asap or it will be speedily deleted.  —Мандичка YO 😜 08:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * By specifically saying he is not voting for deletion, Mr Singh is *not* voting for deletion! This is a discussion, not a mindless rule-driven bureaucracy. Mr Potto (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, per the guidelines of AfD, the nominator's submission of an article for deletion "counts" as a vote in favor of deletion. Additionally, as creator and main contributor of the page, he will bypass the discussion process and the article will be speedily deleted per WP:G7. If you want to have a discussion, the appropriate place is on the talk page for the article, not by creating an AfD discussion page. —Мандичка YO 😜 09:31, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The countless editors and administrators who have listed articles at AfD neutrally would beg to disagree. There's no policy justification for claiming that the author supports deletion when he/she explicitly stated they do not. &#8213; Padenton &#124;&#9993;  17:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have, on several occasions, made procedural nominations at AfD without expression a view that the article should be deleted. I have also made nominatiosn as proxy for IP editors in the past. And in any case, a speedy deletion because "Creator requests it" is only available if no other editors have made significant contributions. Once other editors have contributed work, it is Wikipedia's article, not the original creator's, and the creator is not privileged to demand deletion via a speedy, even shoud s/he wish to do so. It is unusual for the creator of an article to request an AfD discussion, but if other editors have expressed doubt about the appropriatness of the article, it is not unreasonable to ask for community input, and this is one way to do that. DES (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Jeffro77, why are you trying to influence people's opinion by giving your side of the story? I could have also written lengthy stuff during nomination BUT have let others form their opinion.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  09:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Because you have repeatedly misrepresented what I have said, repeatedly misrepresented what the admins said, and you lodged an entirely false vandalism report about me. Do you seriously imagine that I should not give 'my side' after you make claims about what I supposedly 'feel'.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * —Мандичка, I understand this very well and agree with you. Jeffro77 was told by admin Bgwhite in discussion User talk:Bgwhite that he should have nominated this page for AfD; even I told him to do so BUT he has not done that and is ignoring all the advises given. Please read all the discussions he has provided, and there are few more and you will notice that he himself is not sure of why these articles should be redirected. Thus far, he has talked about WP:GNG, WP:Promotion, WP:COI and everything else. Anyway, I did what he was supposed to do - nominate the articles for deletion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  09:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Whilst it is true that Bgwhite indicated that it could have gone to AfD earlier, he also indicated that placing the redirects instead was also appropriate, which made the AfD process redundant thereafter. As such, the point is indeed to waste people's time (in addition to being another opportunity for AKS.9955 to misrepresent what I actually said about why the articles were not suitable).-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Jeffro77, I hate to do this but you are going on and on and quoting Bgwhite out of context. What is said was, quote; Jeffro77, I understand why you did the redirect and would agree with you. However, after the 2nd round of reverts it became an edit war. At the point you should have taken the articles to AfD and let others not involved decide . He clearly advised you to nominate this for AfD and in the past I too have said that. You are not nominating because you know that it does not fail WP:GNG or WP:SPAM. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  09:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * nothing in these responses changes anything. You've requested an article you've recently made be deleted, and nobody is arguing it should be kept. Whatever your motives are is irrelevant. This is speedy deletion per WP:G7. —Мандичка YO 😜 09:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No it is *not* a G7 speedy deletion request, and we know that because the nominator has said so! Mr Potto (talk) 09:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Bgwhite used the past tense about an AfD, and gave no indication that an AfD was necessary after it had been redirected again instead, which Bgwhite specifically said was appropriate and he agreed with it. The AfD after that is merely a tendentious effort to make a point.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it a speedy deletion request. Mr Potto (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. —Мандичка, I agree, opinions are irrelevant. Also, just because the article creator has nominated the article, does not mean it has to be mandatorily deleted. It still has to go through voting process; right? Arun Kumar SINGH  (Talk)  09:25, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No. There is no voting process for articles that qualify for speedy deletion. That's why it's called "speedy" deletion. —Мандичка YO 😜 09:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, this article has not been nominated for speedy deletion, is it? You have merely voted for a speedy deletion. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  09:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has, because you nominated it. Therefore it automatically qualifies for speedy deletion. People who want to keep a page they created do not nominate them for deletion, because that would be ridiculous, as this discussion is, and would only result in the page being deleted. —Мандичка YO 😜 09:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, an article creator nominating their own article for discussion regarding possible deletion is not a speedy deletion request. If you're not able to understand that, at least the closing admin will and should discount your insistence that it is. Mr Potto (talk) 09:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the claim that there is something amiss with nominating your own article for deletion and then !voting against deletion. If I create an article and other editors are of the opinion that it should be deleted but don't know enough to list it at AfD, I might very well list it myself to give the opinion of the newbies a fair hearing. Nothing wrong with that. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, not to my knowledge - no. Any article creator cannot simply get an article zapped just like that. Since AfD has been opened, let majority take a call. With that intention I came here. Thanks for your time. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  09:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Editors can indeed request speedy deletion of an article they have created where they are the only substantial contributor.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes they can, but Mr Singh clearly hasn't - and we know that, because he has said so. Mr Potto (talk) 09:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please take time to review WP:G7. That is EXACTLY what happens. If you don't want the article deleted, then you need to withdraw the deletion and just have a normal discussion on the article talk page. Nobody nominates an article for deletion and at the same time wants it to be kept. Please go through all the archives and find a time that has ever happened. —Мандичка YO 😜 09:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have read G7 just fine, but it is irrelevant because this is not a speedy deletion request. The fact that you are apparently unable to think of a reason why someone might nominate an article of their own for a deletion discussion without actually wanting it deleted speaks only of the paucity of your own imagination. Thankfully, the rest of us are not bound by your limits. Anyway, if you really are so stupid that you think someone saying "My personal opinion is not to delete the article" means they're requesting a speedy deletion, then I'll waste no more of my time on you I honestly don't see how I can help. Mr Potto (talk) 10:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC) (striking some unnecessary rudeness Mr Potto (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC))
 * If a creator of an article wants to generate discussion about keeping the article, that is what the talk page of the article is for. Only a moron would nominate their own article for deletion just to generate some discussion. As I said, please find any other time this has occurred, especially since it is guaranteed to make me laugh myself silly.  —Мандичка YO 😜 10:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, right at the start of Articles for deletion it says "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." I don't see anything anywhere that says the creator of an article must not use AFD to request a deletion discussion and that they are only allowed to do it on the article talk page. I also can't find anywhere where it says article talk pages are where discussions about whether an article should be deleted or kept should be held. Or anywhere that says that if an article creator does start a discussion request at AFD then that is automatically taken as a G7 speedy deletion request. If you can find the policy pages that say any of that, I'll humbly apologize for my error. Mr Potto (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh wow,, after all this I see you have just tagged the article with a G7 speedy deletion request! For the last time, the article's creator has not requested speedy deletion! I have removed the G7 tag. Do not put it back, or you'll be seeing a request for admin action against you. Mr Potto (talk) 10:49, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Mr Potto, I noticed that, you have not at any point in this joke of an AfD, suggested keep or delete. Either contribute to this AfD or go somewhere else and be productive. —Мандичка YO 😜 11:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Mr Potto (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * LAAAAAAAAAAAAAAME —Мандичка YO 😜 13:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , I STRONGLY object to the abusive word moron used by you for me. Either you put an apology here OR I will be forced to report you. Make no mistakes here and learn to be civil during discussions.  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  11:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete appears promotional, with no reliable inadequate independent coverage of the subject, so fails notability as assessed by WP:GNG. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC) updated Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: Independent and additional reference added and available in the article. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  12:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Question and comments:
 * Are there any specific notability guidelines applicable here, or is it just WP:GNG?
 * I don't see this article as promotional as it is written in neutral language and isn't highlighting any specific institution in which one can study for this qualification.
 * I wonder if the contents should perhaps be merged with Central Council of Homoeopathy and this title redirected to that? The Central Council of Homoeopathy does seem to be notable in its own right, and as part of that article then I'd think the diploma it awards would be of encyclopedic value even if it was not sufficiently notable for its own article . Anyway, that's just a thought and I'll come back to it later when more people have had chance to comment. Mr Potto (talk) 13:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC) (replacing with !vote below. Mr Potto (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC))


 * Mr Potto, what matters here is a vote. You may decide to vote keep or delete as you deem fit. Thanks,  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  13:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I appreciate that. But Merge/Redirect is also a common accepted outcome at AFD, and I want to withhold any actual !vote until I've learned more and heard more opinions. Mr Potto (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. AfDs are not a vote at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agreed Mr Potto, This is the intent of the entire exercise and I am glad you are looking at it that way. As a matter of fact, I had said the same thing in one of the discussions previously. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  14:15, 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. Discussimg 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) 14:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to delete per Andy's comment below. I don't think this meets GNG. Beyond which the standard for notability is somewhat higher when the subject is FRINGE. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Lacks the in-depth coverage in third-party sources required to establish notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect Not because of WP:PROFRINGE - this reads about as NPOV as you can describe the topic, and as long as that's the case, it might be a Certificate of Turtle Appreciation for all we should care - but because as a detail related to Central Council of Homoeopathy this doesn't seem worth an article on its own.-- Elmidae (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Turtle appreciation is not a pseudoscientific form of medical quackery. Homeopathy is. WP:FRINGE does not allow fringe subjects to be introduced without disclaimers. The article presents the degree in a way that is no different than a degree in veterinary science. That's a no no. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Disagree; the fringe caharacter of the degrees subject is at one remove here. It's a real degree offered by a real academic institution, which is all the article states. Judgements on the subject are misplaced here - they can be had at the multiple links to homeopathy in the article. In the same way that not every mention of Scientology is an automatic promotion or legitimization and requires an immediate paragraph noting how that volcano hydrogen bomb thing doesn't really work that way, not every mention of homeopathy requires a disclaimer. - Anyway, I'll not be getting into this further and/or even touch any homoepathy-related article - too much rancor.-- Elmidae (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, kudos to Arun Kumar Singh for putting their article up for a vote in this manner.-- Elmidae (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well said Elmidae. Whatever the outcome of this discussion, Mr Singh has behaved most honorably in bringing his article here for others to judge, and the bad faith attacks he has suffered are shameful. Mr Potto (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but no. Nominating an article for deletion requires a proper nomination rationale - one that explains why Wikipedia policy supports deletion. 'Nominating' an article while arguing that the article shouldn't be deleted is a misuse of the AfD process. What should have occurred is discussions on the article talk page over the issues raised in this AfD - and at that point, if discussions couldn't resolve the issues, it would of course be open to someone who supported deletion to raise an AfD. An AfD is not a substitute for other methods of dispute resolution. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've read WP:AFD in its entirety, and what I get from it is that using AFD to start a discussion about whether an article should be deleted is precisely what it is for. I agree that a rationale is required, and the nominator provided one in saying that someone else thinks "this article fails WP:GNG and is WP:SPAM". It seems to me that AFD is exactly the right forum to ask "Should X be deleted?" Mr Potto (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Contributors should base nominations on their own arguments, and not around "what someone else thinks" - they have no right to nominate an article on someone else's behalf unless they have been explicitly asked to. And if WP:AfD doesn't make this clear, it should. None of this mess would have occurred if proper procedures had been followed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello everyone, thanks for your time on this matter; I appreciate it (except for the non-civil & abusive language used). I am somewhat confident that the majority vote will be to either delete or merge it to another article. I am signing off for the day and perhaps by the time I wake up, this discussion would be closed and article deleted; hence my message now. For whatever its worth, I wish to put following for the record;


 * 1) At any point in time I had no intention to introduce a non-worthy article to Wikipedia.


 * 2) I respect the vote of the majority; either way and stand by the decision taken.


 * 3) I personally was of the opinion that this topic was worthy of a page of its own due following reasons;


 * a) Courses are very well known, accorded by over 150 universities and colleges around the world (passes WP:GNG).


 * b) Several hundred thousand students hold this degree.


 * c) Tone was neutral and not promotional (I have written over 130 articles so I understand these issues well).


 * d) Article was well referenced with primary (Government of India) and secondary (news reports from India and other countries) sources.


 * e) Pseudoscience: I don't really give this lot of importance to this argument simply due to the fact if this was the case, several hundred articles (including few good articles) would not have existed on Wikipedia.


 * f) These articles were not a WP:SPAM


 * g) Does not fail WP:TONE


 * h) This is NOT a WP:FRINGE since this is real degree, based on real law of the land and real people study it after paying real money and spend real time. This is NOT a "Questionable science = Hypotheses".


 * i) My main intent of spending my personal time on Wikipedia is to enhance, improve and maintain the quality and quantity of information. And with the same intent, I create every single page; especially if a) It has historic value and b) It has continuous value. In this case, this subjects had both.


 * j) The reason I did not make the articles a sub-section of the "Central Council of Homoeopathy" page was that these two subjects are more notable than the issuing authority itself. Personally, I did not even know my entire life that something like "Central Council of Homoeopathy" exists whereas I always knew what "Homoeopathy" and the two degrees are (just a layman opinion).
 * k) There is NO WP:COI as I have been accused of.


 * At this, I would like to thank Mr Potto and Elmidae for the kind words. Thank you everyone for your time and please don't forget that there is another article Bachelor in Homoeopathic Medicine & Surgery under similar discussion that also requires voting. Once again, thank you for your time and I appreciate your votes. Cheers  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  19:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * An AfD is not a vote. Please familiarise yourself with Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Re point 'H'; Homeopathy is absolutely FRINGE. If a legal degree were granted in astrology it would be no less fringe. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Central Council of Homoeopathy, which seems adequately sourced.  Mini  apolis  22:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete- lacks substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources. All that needs to be said about this is a sentence at the article for the issuing body that this is a degree they have. Reyk  YO!  23:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * delete per GNG, needs secondary sources. The issuing body might pass for notability, but there's no real indication of the diploma being notable in its own right beyond that. Anything needing to be said can be said in the Council's article. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete:- as promotional article with no evidence of notability. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 02:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete as lacking evidence of importance, not to mention the fact that homoeopathic medicine is an oxymoron. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 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. As an aside, the fate of this article should not be determined by whether or not homeopathy is any good (and for the record, I'm on the side of the scientific majority that considers it bunk) but on notability applied from a neutral point of view. As far as tagging any homeopathy articles goes, I don't know what the rules are for that so I'll leave it to people who do know. Mr Potto (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added some additional text and citations, and I suspect that many more could be found. It pretty clearly passes WP:GNG. I don't think much of homeopathy personally, but given that India contains over 150 accredited schools awarding these degrees, with over 10,000 people taking up such degrees a year (according to the sources I just added) and literally millions of people who make use of homeopathic medicine, it is notable. DES (talk) 22:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability of the broader subject does not necessitate an article about an accreditation that can be adequately covered in a sentence or two at the suggested redirect target.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Central Council of Homoeopathy. For reasons given by Mr Potto.Pincrete (talk) 19:25, 26 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.