Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electro Homeopathy


 * 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   keep. Following the rewrite, consensus amongst those who contributed then, was that this is a valid article. Davewild (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Electro Homeopathy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

So that is how colour television works - it uses Debasish Kundu's red, green and blue electricity! Science which is extremely dubious to put it mildly but presented as though it was well established. Of the external links, two are sites associated with Debasish Kundu and one does not work. Essentially it is advertising. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: Advertising. Schuym1 (talk) 03:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Vote changed to Keep because of the rewrite. Schuym1 (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Snake oil. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 04:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep. Now it's an article about the snake oil, which doesn't attempt to give its subject any legitimacy. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Weak Delete nonsense, advertising much improved (thanks) but might still be better merged--perhaps to a Count Cesare Mattei article.. JJL (talk) 04:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per other comments. PhGustaf (talk) 04:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge or Weak Delete The editor has done a fine job improving the article, but I'm still not convinced the subject wouldn't be better as a topic within Homeopathy, or in an article about the Count.  (Curious that the map on the Count's web page shows that I'm somewhere around Walvis Bay.  I'm not.) PhGustaf (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per all above. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to keep and congratulations to Brammarb for his work. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

*Delete nonsense and spam. Doesn't even make WP:FRINGE. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 20:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC) see below
 *  Speedy Weak Delete per JJL. also multiple issues (eg essay, citations). WikiScrubber (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete - Copyvio of . Also per nom plus other deletes. Verbal   chat  14:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Assuming that the notice for copyright is ok, then I still think this should be deleted as advertising, the same as ELECTRO HOMEOPATHY, and because it fails notability. Verbal   chat  17:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Watch out for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm sure this is total bollocks, but it's also quite likely to be notable bollocks (as for homeopathy itself), in which case it does belong here (if only for the first objective commentary it has ever seen). Investigation is required before one could comment as to whether it is notable bollocks (I'm short on time so guidance is welcome) but we shouldn't be too hasty. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment As a clear copyvio it should probably be tagged, so I'll do this now. But the AfD should continue. Verbal   chat
 * Actually this article claims it has permission on the talk page - I was looking at the delete for the same article when added as ELECTRO HOMEOPATHY, see here. Verbal   chat  17:31, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, the citations establish neither factuality nor notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note While I definitely lean towards delete, the founder of this pseudoscience appears to have plenty of refs (and his own museum !) so there may be an article struggling to get out here, although this probably isn't it. A major rewrite with WP:NPOV might save the day. Brammarb (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have done a fairly substantial rewrite that might save it. Brammarb (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Had another look. The external link is not in English. Yes the first site provides a definition but is it notable outside the article on Homeopathy? The second link crashed my internet so forgive me if I won't try exploring more of the links. Your rewrite was good but I would recommend that the info is merged with the homeopathy article. It's simply not notable to stand alone but might warrant a mention in its parent article. So merge, then delete. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 20:34, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still not convinced that the references added to the article establish notability.
 * 1 is a dictionary definition.
 * 2 isn't about electro-homeopathy
 * 3 is unclear what the subject is, "mountain herbs" seems closer to herbalism than homeopathy.
 * 4 not a source independent of the subject.
 * I'm still going with delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That's only an initial go at finding a few things. The Electro Homeopaths themselves seem to be adamant that they are not (in the ordinary sense of the word) homeopaths. There seems to be more info out there, but just pulled together what I could find in a few minutes. Too true about the references - used them to show that there was (a) possible controversy over what it is, (b)&(c) some substance to Count Massei himself (the third reference deals with Massei's 19th century claims he could cure cancer-you might need to scroll down). Absolutely right about the 4th ref, but as I say, there's something to it (even if it's not a science) Certainly not going to scrap too hard over this one, but suspect that a more experienced editor than I could knock this into shape. I'll be happy to do some more work on it but not for a couple of days. Would now say keep but needs more work, which I'll apply to it tomorrow (or possibly this evening), if it survives that long. Brammarb (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep This is a notable piece of pseudo-science and deserves its place in the record. I'm glad to see the first copyvio-riddled article replaced. Although the current article still has many issues (it lists key principles, but fails to explain them) it's certainly worth keeping and improving. Any merge to either homeopathy or mesmerism would be wrong - it isn't a branch of either of them. It has almost nothing in common with the practice of homeopathy either, no more than a shared belief in a few of the same axiomatic principles. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2008 (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.