Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jianpi Wan


 * 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. Nja 247 10:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Jianpi Wan

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

No indication why this pill is notable. There are countless TCM formulae out there plus countless other alternative medicine formulae. Unless there's something special about this one - and I could find none - it does not deserve a standalone article. Tim Song (talk) 09:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The primary indication why this article is notable is that it has been notable enough to be published in full in a number of reputable sources, including those given in the references, namely:
 * . State Pharmacopoeia Commission of the PRC (2005). "Pharmacopoeia of The People's Republic of China (Volume I)". Chemical Industry Press. ISBN 7117069821.
 * 1) *2. Zuo Yanfu, Zhu Zhongbao, Huang Yuezhong, Tao Jinweng, Li Zhaoguo. "Science of Prescriptions", Publishing House of Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine. 2002. ISBN 7810106503. page 320.
 * The secondary indication why this article is notable can be obtained when we do a Google search on "Jianpi Wan". Such a search yields thousands of hits.
 * IMHO, an article cannot be proved to be un-notable just because thousands of its kind exist. For example, "dog" and "apple" are notable, even though there are thousands of animals and thousands of fruits. 弟 (talk) 02:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. The information is reasonable for an encyclopedia to include, and it is described in appropriate sources, so it meets the general notability guideline.  The article could be merged with similar ones, I suppose, but Chinese classic herbal formulas is the only article I can find that would be a reasonable target, and it really is not reasonable to bloat that article with descriptions of each and every formula.  In the end, I think that a separate article is the right solution.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: Why the canvassing/campaigning-esque invites by the article creator?:, . Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note on canvassing/campaigning-esque. I've written to canvass, not to campaign (in the Wikipedia sense of the term). If you think that is campaigning, i'll shorten the canvassing note to make it acceptable.
 * In addition, the invite serves to notify those who have contributed to the area of alternative medicine, and thus may have an interest in the discussions, given that a number of articles in this area have been deleted. 弟 (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * To me, "Now this article makes the formula available in both languages, so that a deeper understanding can be achieved." indicates bias—i.e., implies that the article should be kept. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Point taken. Thank you for pointing it out, as it helps me to set my boundaries. 弟 (talk) 00:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article is referenced, and FWIW, referenced concoctions can in the future all have their own articles. We do have articles on aspirin, morphine, and heroin for instance. Ngchen (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we also have articles on the individual herbs used in the concoction. The more apt analogy, IMHO, would be having articles on Tylenol PM (it's now a redirect). I don't think inclusion in a pharmacoepia is sufficient to confer notability. The second source seems to be a textbook on TCM prescriptions. From the ref it seems like a rather brief mention. As such, I think it falls on the relatively trivial side of the line. Tim Song (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When a formula is important enough to be published in a national pharmacopoeia indicates that it is not published in the pharmacopoeia alone. It is published in full in the second reference, and other books, such as "Chinese Herbal Medicine: Formulas & Strategies" by Dan Bensky and Randall Barolet (ISBN 0939616106), and "Formulas of Traditional Chinese Medicine" (方剂学 fāngjì xué) by Long Zhixian (General Chief Editor), Li Qingye (Chief Editor of Chinese), Liu Zhanwen (Chief Editor of English), Academy Press (学苑出版社 xuéyuàn chūbǎnshè), Beijing University of Traditional Medicine. 2005. ISBN 7507712702. 弟 (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Jianpi Wan is a "Licensed Natural Health Product" in Canada, and can be found in the database of Health Canada, http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ 弟 (talk) 08:43, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think many of the formulas on Chinese classic herbal formula are noteworthy enough to have their own pages. I agree with  WhatamIdoing, having separate pages for the formulas is probably the best idea.  I think if the formula was borrowed by Japan as a kampo formula, then it most likely is guaranteed to be noteworthy enough.  Jianpi Wan isn't a Japanese kampo formula.  So then I'd look to where it was first published. It was published in the Standards of Diagnosis and Treatment (證治準繩 Zhèngzhì Zhǔnshéng) by Wáng Kěntáng (王肯堂) in 1602.  That text is on some lists as a Classical Medical Text.  I figure if it was first used in 1602 and is still in use, then it's noteworthy enough. Dreamingclouds (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Any medicine of even the weakest effect should be notable. Benjwong (talk) 03:31, 11 August 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.