Talk:Nin Jiom Pei Pa Koa

This article is not encyclopedic
See Notability (companies and corporations) for guidelines relating to products and services, which quite clearly are not met by this articles. Authors wishing to remove the deletion tag should state how the articles meets the criteria stated on the aforementioned page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffeeflower (talk • contribs)
 * Please sign your posts, and don't be snarky. The subject of this article is notable, and the article explains why.  I have expanded the article and added references including to the Hong Kong Chamber of Commerce and a published pharmacological study.  Also, I have removed Prod for the third time now.  If you still think the article should be deleted, please use AFD - the act of removing Prod is contesting it and it should not be put back. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-07 21:24Z 
 * First, I concede that with the changes made to the article, my initial point is no longer valid. However, your initial "act" of removing Prod seemed incidental to the minor edits you made, as there was no reflection of this in your edit summary. Therefore, I reinstated it. I did not consider this contested. Second, you are clearly taking this personally, as I do not recall making any "snarky" comments. The omission of a signature on my post is moot, as there is no anonymity; check the page history and you'll clearly see who wrote the comment. I would still recommend placing data about Nin Jiom Pei Pa Koa within an article about Nin Jiom Medicine Manufactory Limited, This is more in line with guidelines on the page notability page I cited earlier. scott a 09:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Normally I would agree that a company's products should be merged into the company's article. However, in this case the "product" came a hundred years before the company, and the company primarily exists for this one product. —Quarl (talk) 2006-10-08 09:35Z 

history section NPOV
the history section is highly biased. All that comes from one source (and is significantly longer than the abstract / what is available.. It would be nice if someone could go into the article (a university student" and verify the information. --Aquahelper (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Factual claims based upon rhetoric
In the lead paragraph: "There's no known side effect in consuming this product due to the natural ingredients" Claims about this herbal remedy should be based upon some fact, not that it is "natural". There are many natural herbs that can quickly kill a person. Is is possible to list the major active chemical compounds to show that this herb is probably safe, or is there any research that would support this claim? I think that this particular argument is commonly made, but it doesn't provide any substantiation. Tsawangdorje (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Nin Jiom Pei Pa Koa 2020-12-07 1.jpg