Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of important homeopaths


 * 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 at new name. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

List of important homeopaths

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Crufy list of people with only a very few described. Wouldn't surprise me if some of the names weren't advertising additions. Very few on the list have articles. Adam Cuerden talk 12:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete In my view there's nothing sufficiently special about just being a homeopath to justify this list. Plus it is in breach of WP:NPOV and WP:ATT. It asserts that these homeopaths are "important" which is a subjective decision while providing no proper sources to support that assertion or indeed to confirm that they are homeopaths. Jules 13:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per NPOV and ATT concerns as expressed by Jules. Otto4711 13:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing NPOV. Importance is subjective. Nuttah68 16:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Homeopathic partisans have been allowed to pursue this sort of cruft on WP for far too long. The main article of Homeopathy is a frequent target of self-advertising attempts, this seems to be no exception.  Skinwalker 17:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going with Delete here Vote changed, see below. What constitutes "important" is subjective in this case - it's kind of a fine line.  Granted, I could be wrong, but at best we're looking at a merge and redirect to Homeopathy. --Dennisthe2 21:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Vote changed to a waffle vote - Weak Keep (the title looks better now, but the article needs to be built up a bit), or barring that, Merge and redirect to Homeopathy. The problem now is whether the article can stand on its own and whether it can be considered notable beyond homeopathy practicioners - and if it can't and doesn't, it's probably better living in the Homeopathy article.  A special note to the nom - just because you can possibly spam it is not only a non-criteria for deletion, it is a straw man argument.  Remember, anybody can edit this thing - which also means anyone can remove spam.  --Dennisthe2 18:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm not delving to deep into this page, but it has 26 references to back up its claims! I'd guess this page meets WP:ATT better than 99% of articles on wikpedia.  The first one I checked  explcitily states that Boericke, William (5th in the list) is an "Eminent U.S. homœopath."  Maybe being a Homeopath is totally bogus, but these people are important homeopaths.  It doesn't matter if the science is bogus, we need to follow Fringe theories. - Peregrine Fisher 10:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment If you assume that "important" should be changed to "notable" this would become a list of notable homeopaths or simply, a list of homeopaths. Should there be such a list? Personally I'm not sure that homeopth is a notable enough occupation to warrant such a list. If such a list existed as an article I am sceptical as to whether many of the unreferenced homeopaths in this artcle would command a place on such a list. Jules 12:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Particularly worrying is the "Other known homeopaths" section, which doesn't assert notability at all. Adam Cuerden talk 13:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep since some of those listed pass WP:BIO but prune the redlinked stuff. Jim Butler(talk) 22:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete . "Important" is clearly a subjective and POV adjective.  List of notable homeopaths would be an improvement.  However, we already have "Category:Homeopaths", so a list is not necessary.-- Kubigula (talk) 22:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm changing my position to abstain in view of the renaming, pruning and arguments made by Peregrine Fisher and Black Falcon. I'm not sold on the value of the list, but enough has been done for me to withdraw my support for deletion.  The main homeopathy article is already so long that I don't see a merge as a practical solution.-- Kubigula (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I removed the "other homeopaths" section, and renamed the page "List of homeopaths." We're left with homeopaths who have their pages, so they're notable, and the rest have citations.  If this page isn't deleted, I'll convert all citations to cite web and remove and hpaths that don't seem to belong.  Also, this list has info that a cat can't contain. - Peregrine Fisher 23:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the current version of the article. The current list describes most of the people on there and has citations and/or articles for all (the two reasons raised in the nomination).  The article has been renamed, so the issue of POV regarding "important" is no longer relevant.  Finally, this list is not redundant to the category as it contains descriptions of each person (dates of birth/death and contributions), is essentially chronologically organised, provides sources, and aids in the development of new articles (WP:LIST point 3).  -- Black Falcon 01:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The shortened version isn't bad, but it'll need moitoring for attempts to use it as advertising. I suppose that semi-protection might be appropriate. Adam Cuerden talk 19:26, 14 March 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.