The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 17:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a repository of loosely-connected topics. Arguably, WP:NOT#FAQ also applies.
Let me expand on the second point a minute, as it's perhaps less obvious. Alternative medicine is a huge, diverse field - each aspect of Alternative medicine has its own jargon, and there's very little overlap. The glossary makes no attempt to deal with this, instead providing random collections of definitions from whereever, ranging from "Index of articles on CAM" (A list of links, filed under I!) Various other sets of links appear somewhat randomly throughout, as it doesn't actually stick to defining terms, but also seeks to duplicate some of the alt-med category trees. Then we get random interjections (Asklepios, Lifestyle), really really obscure therapies that don't even have a Wikipedia article or very little of one, ( Bioecological medicine, Group modalities, plus Tibetan eye chart is a one-line stub, and Grahamism redirects to Sylvester Graham, in which article you will find none of the information listed in the glossary) and so on.
While there are probably some subjects that might benefit from a glossary, alternative medicine is perhaps one of the worst choices for such an undertaking. It's far too broad and too disconnected. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 03:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply