User talk:弟

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --Bourgetalk 14:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hello Bourge, thanks for your tips. 弟 (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jianpi Wan


The article Jianpi Wan has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No evidence of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tim Song (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

> To address the issue of Notability, an additional source from the Publishing House of Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine has been included in the References, as shown below:

Jianpi Wan ( Simplified Chinese:健脾丸) is a blackish-brown pill used in Traditional Chinese medicine to "invigorate the spleen function and improve the appetite". It tastes slightly sweet and bitter. It is used where there is "weakness of the spleen and stomach marked by epigastric and abdominal distension, anorexia and loose bowels". The binding agent is honey. Each pill weighs about 9 grams.

'''The original formula was first published in Zhengzhi Zhunsheng (Standards of Diagnosis and Treatment). It is known as the "Pill for Invigorating the Spleen".'''

Articles for deletion nomination of Jianpi Wan
I have nominated Jianpi Wan, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Jianpi Wan. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tim Song (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Responses on deletion page:

Jianpi Wan

* The primary indication why this article is notable is that it has been notable enough to be published in full in a number of reputable sources, including those given in the references, namely: 1. . State Pharmacopoeia Commission of the PRC (2005). "Pharmacopoeia of The People's Republic of China (Volume I)". Chemical Industry Press. ISBN 7117069821. 2. Zuo Yanfu, Zhu Zhongbao, Huang Yuezhong, Tao Jinweng, Li Zhaoguo. "Science of Prescriptions", Publishing House of Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2002. ISBN 7810106503. page 320.

The secondary indication why this article is notable can be obtained when we do a Google search on "Jianpi Wan". Such a search yields thousands of hits. IMHO, an article cannot be proved to be un-notable just because thousands of its kind exist. For example, "dog" and "apple" are notable, even though there are thousands of animals and thousands of fruits. 弟 (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

* Weak keep. The information is reasonable for an encyclopedia to include, and it is described in appropriate sources, so it meets the general notability guideline. The article could be merged with similar ones, I suppose, but Chinese classic herbal formulas is the only article I can find that would be a reasonable target, and it really is not reasonable to bloat that article with descriptions of each and every formula. In the end, I think that a separate article is the right solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

* Note: Why the canvassing/campaigning-esque invites by the article creator?: [1], [2]. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC) o Thanks for the note on canvassing/campaigning-esque. I've written to canvass, not to campaign (in the Wikipedia sense of the term). If you think that is campaigning, i'll shorten the canvassing note to make it acceptable. o In addition, the invite serves to notify those who have contributed to the area of alternative medicine, and thus may have an interest in the discussions, given that a number of articles in this area have been deleted. 弟 (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC) + To me, "Now this article makes the formula available in both languages, so that a deeper understanding can be achieved." indicates bias—i.e., implies that the article should be kept. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC) # Point taken. Thank you for pointing it out, as it helps me to set my boundaries. 弟 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

* Keep. The article is referenced, and FWIW, referenced concoctions can in the future all have their own articles. We do have articles on aspirin, morphine, and heroin for instance. Ngchen (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but we also have articles on the individual herbs used in the concoction. The more apt analogy, IMHO, would be having articles on Tylenol PM (it's now a redirect). I don't think inclusion in a pharmacoepia is sufficient to confer notability. The second source seems to be a textbook on TCM prescriptions. From the ref it seems like a rather brief mention. As such, I think it falls on the relatively trivial side of the line. Tim Song (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

When a formula is important enough to be published in a national pharmacopoeia indicates that it is not published in the pharmacopoeia alone. It is published in full in the second reference, and other books, such as "Chinese Herbal Medicine: Formulas & Strategies" by Dan Bensky and Randall Barolet (ISBN 0939616106), and "Formulas of Traditional Chinese Medicine" (方剂学 fāngjì xué) by Long Zhixian (General Chief Editor), Li Qingye (Chief Editor of Chinese), Liu Zhanwen (Chief Editor of English), Academy Press (学苑出版社 xuéyuàn chūbǎnshè), Beijing University of Traditional Medicine. 2005. ISBN 7507712702. 弟 (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

* Keep. I think many of the formulas on Chinese classic herbal formula are noteworthy enough to have their own pages. I agree with WhatamIdoing, having separate pages for the formulas is probably the best idea. I think if the formula was borrowed by Japan as a kampo formula, then it most likely is guaranteed to be noteworthy enough. Jianpi Wan isn't a Japanese kampo formula. So then I'd look to where it was first published. It was published in the Standards of Diagnosis and Treatment (證治準繩 Zhèngzhì Zhǔnshéng) by Wáng Kěntáng (王肯堂) in 1602. That text is on some lists as a Classical Medical Text. I figure if it was first used in 1602 and is still in use, then it's noteworthy enough. Dreamingclouds (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC) * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

* Keep. Any medicine of even the weakest effect should be notable. Benjwong (talk) 03:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Health Canada
The following formulas, including Jianpi Wan, are "Licensed Natural Health Products" in Canada, and are found in the website of Health Canada, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ and http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/index-eng.php References http://webprod.hc-sc.gc.ca/lnhpd-bdpsnh/search-recherche.do?lang=eng http://webprod.hc-sc.gc.ca/lnhpd-bdpsnh/info.do?lang=eng&licence=80008922 http://webprod.hc-sc.gc.ca/lnhpd-bdpsnh/info.do?lang=eng&licence=80003880 http://en.tcm-china.info/materia/patent/patent/75805.shtml (Beijing Digital Museum of TCM)

Archives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:弟/Archive_1

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)