Talk:Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions

This article was nominated for deletion on 6 December 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Homeopathy (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Homeopathy, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.HomeopathyWikipedia:WikiProject HomeopathyTemplate:WikiProject HomeopathyHomeopathy articles

This article was nominated for merging with Homeopathy on 27 November 2013. The result of the discussion was not merge.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Homeopathy[edit]

This material would serve better if included in the Homeopathy article. Alone it is just insufficient. JodyB_talk 04:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest putting up a speedy deletion notice rather than bothering with what is at best a single line of text if it were moved to the Homeopathy article.--Daffydavid (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You think that Oliver Wendell Holmes Sr. demolishing homeopathy while its inventor was still alive is significant? I disagree. It's actually rather significant. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume you that the word at the end of your first sentence was meant to be "insignificant". My point is that a single line with a reference back to the actual Holmes publication would be more than sufficient. The article as it is now is too long as per weighting and would be pared down to no more than 1 sentence if moved there. Thus, speedy deletion notice and a single point with a reference at Homeopathy would be the simplest way to go.--Daffydavid (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Put up at AFD, merge notice removed. JodyB_talk 01:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge notice restored. If kept at AfD, we can still discuss the merge. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with merging it to homeopathy. There's too much content here to comfortably merge it with what is already a very huge page. If anything, this would be a better merge with Holmes' article, although the same problems of an overly large page would pose an issue. However, the amount of sources that note this as a cardinal text for critical works on homeopathy make me think that this merits its own page. It just needs to be fleshed out more with the current sourcing and we need a better summary of the text's contents. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:07, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of books and scholarly papers discuss this work in detail. It should be kept as an article in its own right.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this. This has been open for a long enough period. I think that the consensus against merging is pretty clear or at the very least, a non-consensus. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.