Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudoginsenoside F11


 * 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. The article has been substantially improved since nomination and the consensus is that it now meets WP:GNG. Just Chilling (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Pseudoginsenoside F11

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Blatant Original Research A new theory that does not reflect the scientific community consensus. Subject of the article reflect a minority view point. Idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. Note that peer review is not the same as acceptance by the scientific community. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 12:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete  under A1 TheMesquito  buzz  18:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: There exist at least 11 research articles on the substance. I understand, however, that the article was written with commercial interest, and this has been cleaned up a bit. I see the article as something that needs work, not deletion. As far as I can tell, articles on chemical substances, especially if they have some known properties of interest, must not be subject to deletion. --IO Device (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * All I can see from the article now, after your editing on it is nothing but a conclusion drawn from a mere research work. We may consider a stand-alone article in the future, only when the subject of the article is widely discussed, then will someone with no WP:COI, who knows what a sensible article content should be and knows how to link to the title will write about it here.Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 07:28, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * , I can see that you had changed your Keep vote to Comment. In the future, simply strike it with Keep . For example Keep Comment, then your contribution. Cheers. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 18:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. It would probably be worthwhile to have an article on pseudoginsenosides given that an appropriate article on ginsenosides exists. I assume the two are non-overlapping sets of chemicals found in ginseng. Information on specific pseudoginsenosides such as F11 can then begin to exist there. For the moment, since the article is question is not being improved upon, I guess it may as well be deleted. Please note that action is needed to monitor, warn and possibly ban the user who created it, failing which the user will very likely to continue to spam Wikipedia, and quite possibly create further such articles. --IO Device (talk) 03:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * keep and expand Notable, and there are enough references for an article. The present version is not promotional, so I declined a speedy G11, as speedy doesn't apply if the promotionalism is fixable. "promotional intent" by itself is not a reason for deletion if it is rewritten. (Sometimes I wish it were, because then we could remove the probably half million article on barely notable people organizations etc that have probably been written with promotional intent. But it is hard to tell "intent". This could conceivably have used the producers link and information for convenience, not promotionalism). As for the afd reason, I don't see how it's OR in any sense, given there are references to RSs.   DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The references that exist in the literature probably don't conform to MEDRS, as they're not review articles. In principle I don't agree with MEDRS, but that's beside the point. This particular pseudoginsenoside is just one of many interesting pseudoginsenosides, and we don't even have a general article or section on pseudoginsenosides. Regardless, if I start adding a bunch of info to this article, chances are the info will eventually be removed by someone because there is no secondary source available. --IO Device (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * MEDRES does not apply if there are articles about the chemistry.  DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Consider the nearest article, namely ginsenoside. Looking at the article, it is evident that it not so much about the chemistry; it's practically all about the biological effects of various ginsenosides. Even in the best case, this is the realistic future, supported by primary sources, that awaits pseudoginsenoside F11 if it continues to exist. That's if the article is not ignored altogether. --IO Device (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, cleaned up. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep performed a complete rewrite of the article. The article is much improved, with a description of chemical structure, occurrence in nature, folk medicine context, and some antagonistic effects on drugs in mice. The prose is neutral, well referenced, and sticks to the facts with no OR or promotional material. Peer-reviewed publications by multiple independent groups is sufficient for notability of this chemical compound and the rewrite has demonstrated a reasonable stub can be written from them. Per WP:HEY, I recommend keep. Nice work, Opabinia regalis! --Mark viking (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the reasoning by Mark viking. --IO Device (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2015 (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.