Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/健康促進小組


 * 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 deleted per WP:SNOW. nat.utoronto 20:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

健康促進小組

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Apparently a drug, but I'm not sure if it's notable enough. -- Prince Kassad (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Google translate digs it up as an advertising/drugmaker company. It seems almost like a copy/paste from a website, but then again translations are notoriously bad on the internet. It also includes a recipe of some sort. If someone who speaks Chinese could explain more, though, that would be nice. Then we could have a proper article about it. Logical2u (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Zero potential for an article about the product in question; the product name gets 12 Ghits . Even the manufacturer themselves only get 95 non-duplicate GHits . cab (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Untranslated and I'm concerned about the above comment suggesting that a recipe is present. If the topic is notable, I have no objection to a fresh, English-language article being created on the subject (which, if necessary, can always be AFD'd if notability isn't certain). 23skidoo (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The title of the article literally translate to something along the line of "Health improvement group", which doesn't seems like the title (in Chinese) of a drug. The content seems like a copy of what one will find on the side of a drug's packaging. 1, Product name; 2, Maker's company name; 3, Import company name; 4, Content; 5, Usage; 6, Method of consumption; 7, Some date thing; 8, Ingredients; 9, Storage; 10, Authorisation certificate. And then a sentence about how it's not classify as a drug, so doesn't need something. Have no idea what the bottom line is trying to say. KTC (talk) 21:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete a Chinese version of this article should be moved to Chinese wikipedia or this has to be transformed to English to be here, i dont know Chinese so i have no comment weather or not it is notable or not , moreover the consensus will sure rise to delete . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - My Chinese isn't perfect, but KTC's translation seems approximately correct, and this article seems non-notable and lacks context.--Danaman5 (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - A.) A Chinese article has no reason to be here B.)KTC is a native Chinese speaker (see his userpage), and he says it seems to be copied off the side of a drug box or something, and I trust him. C.)If KTC's translation is correct, it's non-notable. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 23:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above, practically WP:CSD (no context); content of no encyclopedic value about a non-notable product from a non-notable manufacturer. cab (talk) 01:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per above --Starionwolf (talk) 02:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Further translation - Having actually reread the first line of text (sentence under "3/3"), and thought about it some more, I now understand the context of this. The writing is what one would find reading a filled in form for someone from the "health improvement group" (article title) doing a (according to the first sentence) "investigation on whether cosmetic products sold on the market meets (certain) cosmetic products packaging regulation". Then you have that list of information from the packaging that I translated above with (10) being "Authorisation certificate number: not found on packaging". The indented sentence under 10 being a note on 10 that says "Asked a shop assistant which informed that it's not a drug, so doesn't need an authorisation certificate number". Still have no idea what the line under that is suppose to be / says. KTC (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.