Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Tyler Kent

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. Editor consensus that the subject is wiki-notable. (non-admin closure) Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

James Tyler Kent[edit]

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

This article cites no sources other than bloggish pro-homeopathy sites, and never has had - it has been flagged for multiple issues for two years (i.e. since creation) and never fixed. Its principal function appears to be to allow homeopaths to tweet "the microbe is not the cause of disease" and link this article. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there seem to be a plentitude of third party sources on Kent and his contributions to Homeopathy in Google Books and Google Scholar. The article needs a {{refimprove}} tag. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC) (signature not showing up for some odd reason. User:Whiteguru wrote this. --Whiteguru (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)</nowiki> The "nowiki" tag was misspelled as "nowwiki", which is why Whiteguru's signature did not show up. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:26, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this, Metropolitain90 --Whiteguru (talk) 10:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's been flagged for improvement for two years and not improved even slightly. Feel free to actually fix it, for example with references to his germ theory denialism. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Peter Morrell's website is not a WP:RS. All sources seem to be fringe and unreliable. Unless it is fixed by adding *reliable* sources, delete as failing WP:NOTE Verbal chat 20:09, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Verbal. It's clear the subject does not have sufficient coverage in reliable sources to prove notability. BelloWello (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A couple of minutes' searching finds reliable sources here (pp. 150, 153) and here. Some of the "delete" arguments above seem to be based on the fallacy that to have an encyclopedia article about someone is somehow an endorsement of his views. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A historical figure who has clearly exerted an influence on a field of human endeavor, homeopathy. We don't have to accept ourselves that this field of endeavor is scientific or valid, only that this person is one who made an impact on that field. This person is the subject of biographical interest and that there are citable sources out there. Many articles have sourcing deficiencies, this is just one. Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 14:34, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Starting to delve into this now... This was one of the fathers of the homeopathic movement, it seems. See, for an example of his influence the 1915 book by Glen Irving Bidwell, How to Use the Repertory, a book literally ABOUT Kent's magnum opus. Carrite (talk) 14:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link that should pretty much definitely resolve the question of whether this is an individual who exerted a lasting impact on a field of human endeavor... A search of WorldCat for the title of Kent's main work, Repertory of the Homoeopathic Materia Medica, returns A LIST OF 119 TITLES, including a large number of books about his book. Carrite (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I have flagged this article for construction (I will be working on it, but not today because I have to go to work) and for rescue (in case others are interested). I've pulled down the sourcing and style tags, it is understood that this piece needs a full rewrite with sourcing. Carrite (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Out of the thousands of books that mention him, not counting the ones written by him of course, he is clearly shown to be notable. Read through the summaries on page 10. [1] Dream Focus 15:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Crikey, Kent wrote some of the most important philosophies of Homeopathy. You don't have to believe a word of them if you don't want to, but they were significant. He is taught in all the Homeopathic colleges and Uni's, in every country in the world. He was massively influential in his time and it's a keep if only for historical value. There are people that practice, teach, understand and use Homeopathy even if some people don't like the subject, and they seem the most vocal. Kent was a biggie in Homeopathy and still is today.

Veryscarymary (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Next to Hahnemann, Kent is the most well known homeopath. His Repertory is the most influential tool employed by homeopaths even to this day. Regardless of whether one has a conventional allopathic bias against homeopathy, this is accurate factual historical information regarding a very prominent figure in the history of medicine. To delete this entry would weaken the credibility of Wikipedia. Hombreslim (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: a purveyor of WP:FRINGE claims, lacking any scientific or medical merit (due to their "conventional ... bias" against claims lacking any theoretical or practical evidentiary basis, and thus lying outside the "history of medicine"), but a notable purveyor nonetheless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:43, 1 May 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.