We've been through all this before.  The fact that other articles treat their subject in a particular way is not a reason for changing this one, which is in accordance with Wikipedia policies.  Any alleged shortcomings of the Ayurveda article should be taken up at Talk:Ayurveda.  
The claim that "the article almost just covers the scientific validity" is something of an exaggeration.  The sections on "Medical and scientific analysis" do not make up "2/3 rd of the sections"; they make up 7 subsections of text out of 22, and at a rough count (and excluding the lead) comprise around 3,300 words out of a total of over 8,000, and are preceded by the sections describing homoeopathy.  The allegation that the article is a result of some sort of plot by "Allopathy" is not a valid criticism of the article and fails to assume good faith.  And the answer to your question is that the article is about both.  You may consider the issue of whether or not it actually works to be unimportant, but I put it to you that most rational people would consider this to be the most important thing about any system of medicine.