Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Herbal Pharmacopoeia and Therapeutic Compendium


 * 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   keep. Cirt (talk) 22:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

American Herbal Pharmacopoeia and Therapeutic Compendium

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

fails WP:ORG Ironholds (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 19:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I declined the speedy delete because a Google Book search turned up evidence of notability: . Pastor Theo (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Although this Compendium is found in many books (listed in Pastor Theo's link), they all appear to be references/footnotes for various herbs. What is required is a source that says the Compendium is notable. Abductive  (reasoning) 05:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Google books indicates it's a notable reference. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The Google Books link turns up a lot of coverage. If so many books are using this Compendium as a source, that should say something about its value. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Must be a notable organization if 117 books use it as a reference.  D r e a m Focus  02:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment The American Herbal Pharmacopoeia's website says it was founded in 1994 (see Overview), but has produced just 17 monographs (see Titles), the prime way the organization says it fulfills its mission (see also Overview page). The total is quite short of the organization's goal of 300 (see also Overview page). The organization has a post office box address, and the email contact address is not the same domain as its web site. The two address that turn up on a Google Maps search, one of which is given as the shipping address on the organization's website (see Contact), appear to be private residences.Only one reference in the first 100 hits of a Google Search comments on the organization, as opposed to its products, or is not a listing. The reference is from the blog of a company called Blue Poppy, who are a publisher and merchant selling books, herbs, and Chinese medicine products (see Blue Poppy History). The comments do give effusive praise. On balance, the evidence is does not seem to meet the test at WP:GNG of that "a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --papageno (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Can't say it fails "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." -MBHiii (talk) 15:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Coverage? It's been cited, not covered. It's a major difference. Abductive  (reasoning) 15:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but here's just one -MBHiii (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. The reference says the organization "lacks government recognition", then asserts that their works (as opposed to the organization) are accepted as standards by many organizations, without naming any, or providing any references. --papageno (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
 * Delete per nom and papageno. Fails WP:ORG, while it may be cited, it lacks coverage by reliable secondary sources. - Crockspot (talk) 20:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Cyber cobra  (talk) 07:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per iron holds fails wp:org--Notedgrant (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Google books indicates it's a notable reference. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2009 (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.