Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Homeopathic Association

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. Big Dom 13:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Homeopathic Association

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

Written as an advertisement. Notability of organisation is at best very low, and reliable sources sufficient to write a balanced, neutral article are likely insufficient in number. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 11:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it reads like an advert at all, but even if it did, that would be an argument for editing, not deletion. This body is notable, unfortunately. It campaigns, as the article says, to have quack medicine accepted and paid for by the National Health Service. News coverage is extensive, for example [1], [2], [3] and the organisation has given evidence to Parliament [4]. Keep Emeraude (talk) 11:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unfortunately. Huge number of results in Google news and web, despite existing solely to peddle quack remedies and misinformation. Douglasi (talk) 12:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the leading UK body promoting the practise of homeopathy and long established. Notability cannot be in doubt. The absence of neutral articles on campaiging bodies is hardly surprising, and remember that most of what has been written about this body will not be on the web. Whether we agree with the BHA is not the point. AJHingston (talk) 13:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - An organization that has been around for more than a century is notable, plain and simple. How's that for an easy, shut-yer-brain-off sort of generalization? Inclusion does not constitution of endorsement of a group or its views. Carrite (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Please no horrible dilution/deletion puns. cab (call) 07:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. National, historic, relatively well-known organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per above Keep comments. Nipsonanomhmata ^(Talk) 21:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Historical notability of homeopathic approaches to health/medicine would be hard to dispute. Would add that whether or not one likes a person, organization, practice, policy, religion etc is not especially relevant. Tchicken7 (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2011 (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.