Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gongjin-dan


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Gongjin-dan

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

The entire article is made up of unsupported extraordinary medical claims. I don't really see any content that is salvageable here. Tollens (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed,Rosguill talk 01:35, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Medicine,  and Korea. Tollens (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Is nothing but ridiculous pseudoscientific claims. JML1148 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. Artem.G (talk) 19:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete as not salvageable at this time. Draken Bowser (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - I have removed the unsourced claims. What remains is a sketch with some sourcing. It can be built back in a responsible way. There are numerous hits in a Scholar search so I believe the topic is notable. ~Kvng (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what part of the remainder of the article is helpful - all that is left is a single sentence and a list of books. I can find no secondary sources with which to establish notability, and the claims in the articles found in a Scholar search make such extraordinary claims that I don't believe there's enough sourcing to justify their inclusion per WP:REDFLAG. I suppose the article could be draftified, but I see no value in the article's current form. Tollens (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Minimally, the value is that this is a remedy that exists and is discussed in sources and so is likely to be searched for by readers. I'd rather readers see a stub than nothing at all. Some of those readers will be curious, will search elsewhere and will come back and improve this article. That's how Wikipedia works. ~Kvng (talk) 17:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I just don't see what sources could be used to improve the article. I can find exactly zero reliable secondary sources even mentioning the existence of the remedy, but WP:GNG states explicitly that "Sources" should be secondary sources. I too would rather readers see stubs than nothing at all, provided that it is possible to expand the article, but there is simply nothing I can find that would be appropriate to cite. Tollens (talk) 17:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing usable here? ~Kvng (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not clearly that I can see, no. Those are all primary sources that, when taken together, seem to support the ridiculous claims that were in the article, but exceptional claims require exceptional sources, which a few unreplicated studies are not. Tollens (talk) 01:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * If all of them had made a similar credible claim, they would absolutely be usable, but they instead all make different claims including but not limited to preventing fatigue, enhancing memory, eliminating insomnia, protecting the brain after a stroke, curing underactive bladder, preventing liver injury, reducing pain, preventing contact dermatitis, enhancing stamina, and improving circulation to the kidneys. It should be clear that if an effective remedy for all these things existed there would be more than a couple studies, and at the very least one reliable secondary source that has mentioned it. Tollens (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * In addition, note that WP:MEDRS states in no uncertain terms that Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Tollens (talk) 02:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * does appear to be a secondary source but not a high quality one. ~Kvng (talk) 13:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah - my mistake. Again, however, the conclusions they come to, even in that single source, are absurd. From their abstract's results section:
 * "In clinical studies, GJD has the various effectiveness in cardiovascular diseases, alcoholic hepatitis, mild dementia, anemia. Also experimental studies related to the GJD show a variety of effects, such as anti-oxidative activity, neuroprotective activity, hepatoprotective activity, anti-inflammatory activity, immunological activity, reproductive recovery activity with fewer side-effects."
 * The claim is simply ridiculous - that literature review is not enough to support inclusion of anything in it. Tollens (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Redirect to Traditional Korean medicine, seems to be the same thing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:58, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not the same thing but presumably a superset. Good idea but Gongjin-dan does not seem to be mentioned there. ~Kvng (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Oh, it seems similar. I'd vote for !delete then. Oaktree b (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2023 (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.