Talk:List of homeopaths
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for deletion on March 7, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Campbell
editI've removed Campbell because it says at the top that it's a list of those gnenerally considered influential. He's notable, but is he influential?
Text removed is below. Adam Cuerden talk 23:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Campbell, Anthony edited the British Homeopathic Journal (now Homeopathy), the peer-review journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy.[1]
- Probably not so much. Agree. Abridged talk 00:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
References
recent changes by anon
editRegarding the recent changes by anon edit summary history here I think that they are ok. I don't know much about Hubbard and Stearns, to tell the truth, but the others are certainly influential. I will add a sentence on each of them as we have been doing in the article. Anon, if you come back, you should join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Homeopathy and help out. Abridged talk 20:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Removed
editI've removed a few - influential isn't quite the same as notable, and, while earlier notable homeopaths can be presumed to have had large influence, I'm not sure that most modern homeopaths by default can be presumed influential just because they may be notable or have written standard texts. I may have blundered on a few: Vithoulkas is clearly notable and famous, but did he actually develop techniques and methods that are different and new, or is he a strong populariser? Adam Cuerden talk 15:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- Adam, I restored all of them except for Shah. The names I restored are all modern highly influential homeopaths. I'm not sure you know the field enough to pass judgement on this. Abridged talk 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- If you must get rid of a few, morrison and murphy would probably be the ones to remove. But why not discuss on the talk page first? Abridged talk 23:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Self-promo and advertising
editHow can this be reduced? This list needs some strict inclusion criteria. They must be notable enough for qualification for a Wikipedia article of their own, or have extremely good secondary and tertiary (not primary) sources that prove their notability. Without an article or such sources, they should be removed. The alternative is to AfD this list. -- Fyslee / talk 01:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
- As of Nov 2017, the every name on the list has a separate Wikipedia article. Did not check those to see if any are candidates for AfD. David notMD (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)