Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scottish Herbal Remedies


 * 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. Nakon 04:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Scottish Herbal Remedies

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This (miscapitalised) article advances the idea that Scottish herbal remedies exist as a distinct thing. They don't as far as I can tell. The sources include advertising, unreliable websites and a couple of book sources that again as far as I can tell, don't actually show Scottish herbal remedies to be a distinct concept. Google search for Scottish herbal remedies (quoted) turns up around 30 unique hits, with this article first. I call WP:SYN if not spam. Guy (Help!) 14:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment maybe if we remove the worst excesses of the individual treatment info we could consider a move to 'History of herbal medicine in Scotland' - given the subject has a long history of being studied there which continues at universities today, this might not be too controversial.-- ℕ  ℱ  14:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes, I agree that a historical approach would be preferable to one giving a list of ingredients (though the latter approach seems quite popular on WP (Category:Medicinal plants by tradition) but plenty of sources are available which are specific to Scottish herbs (and include or are devoted to aspects of traditional medicine). And, yes, academics do deal with this specific topic – Celtic Medicine in Scotland. I tend to think "Celtic herbal remedies" or even "Celtic medicine" might turn out to have a good scope so I might favour merging to such an article if one was created. Meanwhile this topic is separately notable. I agree that the title is a descriptive phrase and not a proper noun. Thincat (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete "Scottish herbal remedies" is, so far as I can see, a synthetic topic without any good coverage in RS. Even the arguments above seem to be in favour of other topics rather than the topic in question. Alexbrn (talk) 07:14, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is possible that there is a germ of a topic here. Celtic folk remedies, for example, might work. Such an article would include more than just herbs favored by the Scotts, obviously. One might ask whether this article has anything worthy of keeping in a proposed new article. Alas, I find nothing. The sourcing is atrocious, the claims dubious, and the framing in violation of a number of policies and guidelines. So WP:TNT should be applied and I don't think that a redirect is necessary. jps (talk) 12:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:23, 27 July 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Alternative approaches, as suggested by Thincat and jps might be possible. But those cannot and should not represent the material we have here. This article makes affirmative medical claims, and fails to support them with WP:RS much less WP:MEDRS. Most of the web sources are inadequate. Many of the sources cited by inline citation are simply absent from the reference list; those that are present do not inspire a great deal of confidence. Indeed, at least one is cited defectively: Colonsay, one of the Hebrides was a 1910 book, not by Murdo MacNeill, but by Murdoch McNeill. The assumption of good faith in no way requires me to believe that greater care was taken in analyzing these sources (some of which go back to the 18th century) than was taken in citing them. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This is a shallow article. There are however quite a number of Harvard type citations in the text.  Unfortunately, the article fails to ideitify the publications cited.  Possibly rescuable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * delete The problem really is that this isn't established as a topic unto itself. It would make sense that herbalism in any area would use local plants; nevertheless I would question whether this is really distinct from European herbalism as a whole. At most this identifies some plants of limited range. Mangoe (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, S warm   ♠  00:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I feel that this article should be deleted, and a historical approach/celtic medicine may be preferable. TheMagikCow (talk) 16:59, 4 August 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.