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.
