Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramuan


 * 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. Flowerparty ☀ 00:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Ramuan

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

I came to the page on NPP. Initially though it just needed help, but the links were to a commerical website and the book source is published by the same company. I've done a quick Google and News search and can't find any sources to establish notability. Ramuan has the veil of being an actual idea but is just an advert Bigger digger (talk) 11:37, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It's never clear to me whether the nominator should vote, but I'll get the ball rolling. I have notified the creator and the single contributor. The article can't even be made into one about the firm as there's nothing notable there. It could possible be a dicdef and is part of the name of a place but is not suitable for wp. Bigger digger (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, as the nominator, your nomination rationale is your !vote. After that you may comment all you want and reply to other comments but you shouldn't bold "delete" again. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * D'accord, merci beaucoup. Bigger digger (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A Google book search indicates that this is more than mere spam though poorly sourced. I can't vouch for the details but the essential concept seems to be notable. An alternative to deletion would be a redirect to Herbalism but this seems to be a broader concept than that, incorporating beauty and food as well as medicinal values.  I am glad to see more articles on ethnobotany but wish they were better sourced. Drawn Some (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough Gbooks hits to show notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment As per my !vote above, the dicdef shows that ramuan is Malay/Indonesian for "ingredient". It's therefore inevitable that it throws up a lot of hits. On the second page of the Gbooks search it has a mention in a Harry Potter book. There is still nothing to show notability. Bigger digger (talk) 18:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Needs work, but with the work it could be good enough. -- Abce2 | Access  Denied  19:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? What work is there? What sources are there? I would love to be proved wrong, and that this article is actually worthwile because there are sources out there. I spent 30 minutes on tagging and copyediting it before realising it was worthless, but you have just come along and not even !voted, you've just voted. Please provide some evidence for your position. Bigger digger (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep This is the first documented form of Ramuan. It is an ancient traditional practice of the Malaysian people although unknown to anyone beyond the Malaysian culture.  The book is the very first literary introduction of this practice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.208.209 (talk) 21:17, 12 June 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.