Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traditional Chinese medicine Network Pharmacology


 * 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. clear consensus  DGG ( talk ) 09:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Traditional Chinese medicine Network Pharmacology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article created by WP:SPA, with primary function of WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMO. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree. Judging from Google Scholar, it may also be violating COI. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable, promotional, OR, and COI inspired. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Appears to be one scientist's work that is being blown up here as WP:PROMO.  Most of the article is WP:SYN and WP:CRYSTALBALL.  Jytdog (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice. It is my first time to write a wikipedia, I am still learning to be objective and unbiased. I write this wiki page because almost everyone knows TCM in China, but it is lack recognized in US (I am now studying in Boston). So I think the page should not be deleted speedily, but we can improve it together and contribute to human knowledge. (PS: To get more information, an article on wall street journal introduced TCM (in the external link). There are also reference papers related.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shikang Liu (talk • contribs) 22:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * a couple of things. First this is not a speedy deletion discussion, but rather, a standard deletion discussion.  It will run awhile, and then someone will review all the !votes and decide what to do. Secondly, the article is not about Traditional Chinese Medicine (we already have an article on that) but rather is a mash-up between very contemporary ideas about network analysis, the "holistic" ideas of many traditional medicines, and the messiness of natural product pharmacology.  I see how the mashup makes sense, but there is very little literature on it; i think the subject of the article is too new to have a Wikipedia article.   And the writing of the article itself is a lot of synthesis, which we don't do here. Jytdog (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I see.Shikang Liu(User talk:Shikang Liu) 03:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, that's a very good, and sympathetic, analysis. Some day this might gain enough traction to become notable enough for an article here, but I don't think that day has arrived. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete because what sourced material there is in the article could go into existing articles, although it is not clear that even the sourced material is useful.Desoto10 (talk) 01:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Lacks notability. Alexbrn talk 03:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. This is merely an extension of the term traditional Chinese medicine and I suspect that it does not contribute to human knowledge in any sense. Other than that the title capitalisation is awkward and wrong. Chhandama (talk) 10:29, 15 November 2014 (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.