Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chyawanprash (2nd nomination)

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. v/r - TP 01:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chyawanprash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is nothing here which is verifiable to any reliable source. An attempt at reducing the article to only verifiable information left a single sentence about a scientific study, the merits of which the source does not explain. Hence the article does not belong as it clearly fails WP:V N419BH 04:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although a lot of the original article was awful, it sure looks like a good article could be written about this stuff - there are dozens of peer reviewed papers about it on gscholar, and tons of other secondary source coverage. Although unverifiable claims shouldn't remain in articles (and the earlier version had a bunch of stuff that failed V and NPOV in it) deletion isn't usually used to deal with problems that can be fixed through ordinary editing. Kevin (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article can be sufficiently improved such that it passes WP:V and doesn't fall afoul of other policies, particularly WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:FRINGE then that is a satisfactory outcome. As is however the article doesn't have anything useable in it so unless improvements are made we need to delete it and start over. N419BH 06:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion isn't for problems that can be solved through ordinary editing. You should feel free to shorten the article as much as is needed to get it to conform with our content policies - I already deleted like 80% of the content in the article. You don't need a consensus at AfD to shorten an article in such a way. If it has to be cut down to a single sentence for v, or, or npov - that's fine, it can be a single sentence. We don't have a policy against stubs. A brief examination of the secondary sources that cover it shows that it passes the WP:GNG. Since it's a notable topic, there's no need (and in fact, no policy allowing us) to delete it. Kevin (talk) 21:52, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Enough coverage exists to make this substance notable, a simple Google search on any one of its spellings is enough to demonstrate this. I've thrown in some references to help it stand up (though a rewrite still wouldn't go amiss...) Yunshui (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic seems worth keeping. May be some one may rewrite to put it better if needed. Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 16:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Per these sources. SL93 (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't work out if you're being incredibly arch, or just don't know how URLs work... In the spirit of AGF, I'm assuming the former. Yunshui (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the search because I don't need to cater to lazy people who can't read sources on the first page of a search. SL93 (talk)

• Keep It is a household name in India. Shyamsunder (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per reliable sources that establish notability of the topic. It appears that the nominator didn't follow the guidelines listed in WP:BEFORE for source searching prior to nominating this article for deletion, which nullifies the basis of nomination for deletion. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I did. Little or no progress on improving the article has been made in the six years since the previous nomination, so "normal editing" clearly wasn't improving the article. Furthermore, I do not have the necessary knowledge of either alternative medicine or Indian culture to fix the article. Therefore, my only choices were to tag the article and wait another 5 years before someone did anything about it, blank the article and be reverted, or nominate the article for deletion since only one sentence in it was sourced and I couldn't determine the validity of said source. I feel my nomination is therefore completely within process and the page in original form was a valid candidate for deletion per WP:V. N419BH 05:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - When nominating, please consider being more specific in the rationale for deletion. The way the nomination is worded, it appears that you're only referring to content within the article, as there's no mention of stated required search for reliable sources. Using the statement "There is nothing here which is verifiable to any reliable source" as stated in your nomination implies that you are referring to the content within the article, rather than the availability of reliable sources through the required source-searching before nomination. The statement in your nomination that the article therefore does not belong is not congruent with following the procedures required before nomination, again, because it is based upon the content within the article rather than a search for reliable sources. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:34, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.