Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions

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. Much work has been added to the article including references. As I am the nominator I will withdraw the nomination and close it as a Keep JodyB_talk 21:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy and Its Kindred Delusions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a discussion regarding merging most, not all, felt that it was best to delete the article. I agree. However, CSD is probably not the right venue as there are some who would challenge it. It should be deleted because there is neither significant nor sufficient notability for this article. JodyB_talk 01:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm digging for sources, but so far I'm finding evidence to show that it looks to have been (and still be to some extent) fairly influential in its time. I'm finding places where it's used as a source and it's even quoted in the Oxford Dictionary of Medical Quotations. I'm not voting either way just yet, just that I think that there might be enough to establish notability for it if we continue to dig.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 04:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. It took a little digging, but I found several mentions of this in various locations where it's considered to be a rather influential text as far as homeopathy criticism goes. I've found where it's sourced in a lot of different works ([1], [2], [3], [4]) and I'm still finding more. It's not as well known as On the Origin of Species, but it does seem to have gotten quite a bit of notice in its sphere.
(｡◕‿◕｡) 05:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - I expected to be reading a POV essay. But this is a sufficiently sourced article on a book by Oliver Wendell Holmes. A GNG pass. Carrite (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, or Keep. I think a merge would be better, but we can discuss that later. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. JodyB's analysis of the merge discussion is faulty. There were two !votes in favor of deletion, and one "keep or merge" from Guy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 10:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment
SNOW begins to fall I will be pleased to withdraw the nomination.JodyB_talk 12:15, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
No one has !voted delete, so you can withdraw the nomination. If someone does !vote delete, the nomination would need to run its course. (For this purpose, merge would be part of keep, although I'm not whether a userfy !vote would qualify.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.