Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taoist Medicine


 * 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   no consensus. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Taoist Medicine

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 01:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete immediately I never know how to do these fucking things, so here goes.  No citations.  Unencyclopedic writing.  No links.  Nothing to show that it's notable.  It's advertising.  If anything give it one sentence in the other pseudoscience article, Traditional chinese medicine.  Otherwise, delete this travesty.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 01:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be an expert on writing on wiki, but please be polite when express your opinion.
 * Author's response

I created this page. This is the first time I created an article on wiki. I went through wiki tutorial but found myself clumsy when I actually did it. In the beginning, I messed up the references and citation part, now I fixed them. I added some external website information as well. This is definitely notable subject. Taoist medicine and Chinese traditional medicine are two different things! This article explains the differences.

Please let me know what can be improved and I will work on it. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjnullww (talk • contribs) 02:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment From what I see, the nominator is reverting all attempts by the author to fix this article. Alpha Quadrant    talk    03:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree, this article has been extensively reverted --User:Warrior777 (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy - The only "fix" that matters is the provision of wp:RS references to establish notability. So far the only source suggested is in Chinese. While that complicates matters it does not on its own disqualify the source. shows a copy in the NLM, another at the University of Michigan, Anne Arbor, and no others in the thousands of included libraries. It also shows no other publications by that author, Xiong, Chunjin, 1948- 熊春锦. We'd need some confirmation of that source's reliability. Other books that address the general area are at this list. One of them might suffice to rescue the article, but that certainly has not been established. In the meanwhile, it does not belong in articlespace. LeadSongDog  come howl!  13:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Userfy and suggest the author get sources for it - the topic, moreover, decidedly fits into "traditional Chinese medicine" where any material really would be a better choice. Meanwhile, AfD is a remarkably bad place to make acusations against anyone on this sort of issue. Collect (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The suggestion that Taoist medicine is not notable is absurd - see sources such as Medicine in China: a history of ideas, for example. That the article is new and imperfect is not a reason to delete because it is our explicit policy to tolerate such weak starts and to nuture them rather than to delete them.  Warden (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Colonel, but that source doesn't talk about "Taoist Medicine", it talks about "Chinese medicine", and even WP:IMPERFECT explicitly acknowledges that "it is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research". LeadSongDog come howl!  05:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is our policy that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. We are therefore not concerned here with the phrase Taoist Medicine in an exact and literal way.  Such literalism would be silly when the topic is mostly translated from Chinese and even Taoism itself may be translated in different ways, e.g. Daoism.  The source cited above clearly supports this topic by its detailed account of the way in which Taoist thought and concepts informed and influenced medicine: its theory of disease (demons), its therapeutic approach (alchemy), and so on.  In any case, that is just one example.  See also On the Early Legacy and Theories of Taoist Medicine, Textual Research on Taoist Medicine of Dunhuang Caves, Study on development history of Taoist medicine in Wudang. Warden (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * keep I would suggest you drop the comparison between TM and TCM and add extensively to the methods used in TM medical practise. Also make sure you reference all material to second source references. The article is of notability. The article is not spam. It is however a stub. I'd suggest you look up stub which means it is very short primarily and lacks content. My apologize for the rough treatment. Nemaste --User:Warrior777 (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Traditional chinese medicine. I think this topic certainly meets WP:N - see the google scholar results page for a start:, but the current content is really not worth keeping. Taoist medicine and traditional chinese medicine are very closely associated, and it doesn't necessarily need an independent article. Anthem 16:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas . --Tothwolf (talk) 03:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect - to TCM. I understand that they are not the same, but without expansion and references, it is better served to be a redirect to a new subsection on TCM where the differences can be mentioned.  jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 02:40, 11 June 2011 (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.