Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnesium Phosphoricum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Merge/Redirect Interested editors should discuss elsewhere and perform the required action. For more information, please see talk page. JERRY talk contribs 05:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Magnesium Phosphoricum

Magnesium Phosphoricum (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Very, very short article, free of context, does not even say what the substance is, and it's questionable whether every homeopathic medicine (of which there are hundreds, if not thousands or millions) even should have its own article. Also, it's been in existence a year, but noone has expanded it beyond the sentence. Adam Cuerden talk 18:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak keep: while the article needs expansion, there are ample Internet hits for it implying notability. Mh29255 (talk) 18:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect: Redirect to Magnesium phosphate. Magnesium Phosphoricum is not a IUPAC name for a chemical compound. Nick (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • The chemical formula for Magnesium Phosphoricum, as given in some of the many books that document it (take note, Adam Cuerden), is MgHPO4.7H2O. It's probably worth noting in magnesium phosphate that this is also a phosphate if you want to merge the two. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I remind the nominator that there is no deadline, and that xe should always look for sources xyrself before nominating an article for deletion, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy, the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, and what it says right at the top of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If an article hasn't been expanded in a year, then the right thing to do is to see whether it is possible to expand it. AFD is not a Big Hammer for getting stub articles to be expanded. This is a volunteer-written project, and we've had some articles that have taken five years to improve from stub status before now. Uncle G (talk) 19:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • At present on the Talk:Homeopathy page the proposal is being discussed to create a List of homeopathic remedies. I support this idea, when the list is created would suggest merging this stub into the list. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
    • That would be more sensible than having an article for each; I very much doubt there is much to say about them except what they are advertised as treating. -- Mithent (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Magnesium phosphate. Tevildo (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete The material,such as it is, can be added to the list of homeopathic preparations. The remedy itself does not warrant an article. There has been no expansion as there really isn't much to add --88.172.132.94 (talk) 07:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This article contains no useful information, and can not be expanded much. The proposal of a table of homeopathic remedies made on the Homeopathy talk page is a much better proposal for dealing with this kind of information.--RDOlivaw (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete-- agree with RDOlivaw. "Alternative" medicine that very poorly refernced throughout the net. SeanMD80talk | contribs 13:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm just wondering if it might be worthwhile for those interested in homeopathy to start their own mini encyclopedia over at Wikia, and we could have some basic topics here with links to their site, much as we do with Memory Alpha, the Star Trek wiki. It seems some of the homeopathy topics don't meet our notability and verifiability criteria and something like this might offer a decent compromise. Nick (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with Magnesium phosphate, at least for the moment. If Uncle G is correct as to the formula MgHPO4.7H2O, this should be added to the article. This is a different phosphate compound of magnesium, but could conventiently be dealt with as a separate section. The present article will of course survive as a redirect, so that the use of what I suspect to be an obsolete pharmacists' term for the compound will not siappear completely. I am not sure what the present usual chemical name is, as I last did chemistry, for a degreee, over 35 years ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This could be better served by a reference in a homeopathic list, and does not meet the criteria for its own article. Per nom and other delete arguments --88.172.132.94 (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
is that not an argument for my suggested merge? Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Magnesium phosphate and add a note, there, that the heptahydrate is used in making a homeopathic remedy (until a homeopathic remedy list comes into being). Tim Ross·talk 12:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge, but what do I know? Bearian (talk) 01:01, 29 January 2008 (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.