Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferrum Phosphoricum


 * 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 no consensus. W.marsh 02:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ferrum Phosphoricum

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Very short article on a homeopathic remedy of no particular notability. It has no context, and what very little information is provided could be easily recreated if anyone was ever willing to actually spend time to make a decent article out of it. About a two weeks have passed from a proposed deletion, but no significant improvements seem forthcoming. Adam Cuerden talk 13:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete All homeopathic 'remedies' are essentially vials of pure water which rely on the placebo effect for their 'cures'. There is no difference therefore between one such preparation and any other. Nick mallory 13:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. /Blaxthos 14:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Short text containing some unverified statements. NCurse work 15:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dilute to infinite potency--Victor falk 17:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: struck out per later !vote below. --Pak21 11:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Although I personally agree with Nick about the reality of it, that's POV. Stuff that is fairly widely believed to cure a disease is notable, just as other popular "science". In this case, there is sizable minority that take it seriously. The article needs expansion--there are quite a number of homeopathic sources for these. DGG (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not POV, it's science. The article itself says it's diluted to one part in a million.  Homeopathic remedies are diluted to such an extent that no molecules of the original 'active substance' remains in them.  They are literally just water .  Nick mallory 07:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not the same as other homeopathic remedies for the simple reason that it has a different label on the bottle and is sold for a different purpose. And that is something that can be verified and included in an encyclopedic article that complies with WP:V. --Itub 11:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep per above. JJL 01:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, though, it's just one of hundreds of Homeopathic remedies. There's no particular notability of it, and I doubt that it'll ever be expanded significantly. Adam Cuerden talk 06:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment But surely there are more allopathic rememdies, many of which are also of limited notability? I see clear encyclopedic value to having them here (er, leaving aside the fact that it's pseudo-scientific hogwash). JJL 13:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Homeopathic remedies exist and are sold widely in the real world, and a comprehensive encyclopedia should document their existence and alleged uses. The fact that they don't work is not relevant. We can have articles about unicorns, even though they don't exist, right? --Itub 11:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Dilute Diluted keep Itub has a point, and I must admit that I wp:idontlikeit. Notwithstanding my personal bias, there are thorny problems. How can claims of its curative effects fulfill wp:v & wp:rs? It then turns into a wp:soap. I hope this dilutes my keep vote with great potency...--victor falk 11:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: (apparently) notable homeopathic remedy. would seem to be a reasonable source, and the sources listed there possibly even better. In response to comments above, AfD is not the article improvement drive. --Pak21 11:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * keep- is clearly notable, agree with reasoning above.JJJ999 06:01, 19 October 2007 (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.