Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chinese Herbal Extract Granules


 * 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   delete. Rounded up to delete, given concerns of WP:COPYVIO, too. Whether or not Davey's comment included a typo would help more clearly demonstrate consensus, but it makes sense to assume it is, given the rationale coincides with the rationale given by the nominator and others. slakr \ talk / 10:07, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Chinese Herbal Extract Granules

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article about a specific product, little to no third-party coverage - fails to establish notability, borderline advert. Proposed deletion removed by article's creator without an explanation. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as promotional article that doesn't pass WP:GNG. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  00:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 05:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Comment: The Procedure section in this article is a close paraphrase of this page; were the article to survive, most of its text would require deletion. AllyD (talk) 07:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It is actually a badly entitled and poorly written generic article. It really has nothing to do with being an advertisement.  The article details one type of modern commercial preparation of traditional Chinese herbal remedies.  It needs extensive rewriting, and additional sources.  The weak in my keep is because I am not sure whether or not it would be better deleted and the appropriate article started from scratch. --Bejnar (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 01:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom & DGG - The article does read more like an article than an encyclopedic article, Plus fails GNG. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  14:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment DGG hasn't commented here, is this the AfD you meant to comment on? --j⚛e deckertalk 16:50, 2 May 2014 (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.