Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy


 * 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. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable organization, as well as a highly promotional article tone  CatcherStorm    talk   19:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am convinced that this article complies with the principles and aims of Wikipedia. ESCOP is an internationally acknowledged scientific association of European experts in phytotherapy. ESCOP publishes books that are used as references by pharmacists, medical doctors. Phytomedicine, one highly ranked scientific journal is published in affiliation with ESCOP. ESCOP regularly takes part in the public consultation of the European Medicines Agency. This article is supported by several third-party references. Moreover, it is the translation of an already existing German page. Csupord (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * There appear to be a number of external references. Rathfelder (talk) 21:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems to be notable to me. Mccapra (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable to me too. If you don't want it to contain promotional content, remove it yourself. Do it yourself If you are not sure, bring the issue to the talk-page. Someone will make the right-decision as long as your give specific reasoning on why the content ought to be chopped off. As an example:
 * 1) I saw "zirconia is metal free and is biocompatible" in the old version at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Root_analogue_dental_implant&oldid=880308366
 * 2) Then, I gave my independent thought. I said "Conventional titanium is biocompatible too, thus I find this sentence to be boasting".
 * 3) Someone else chopped off the entire "Advantages" section, and I agree to do so. We shouldn't "force" someone else to read non-neutral content. Tony85poon (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2019 (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.