Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fengyou essence

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fengyou essence

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable medicine. The article does not cite any non-Chinese sources. Partofthemachine (talk) 19:05, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep references do not need to be in English. There are many Google Scholar hits for the Chinese term "风油精". (https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22%E9%A3%8E%E6%B2%B9%E7%B2%BE%22&btnG=) At least some are medical type articles, and others are chemical analyses. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:38, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of better sources. The website link seems to be a WebMD-type blog; not a reliable source. Zero useful sources on Scholar or otherwise on the web, apart from many many sales listings. Realistically, this is because 99% of sources will not use the English name. But then someone with Chinese skills has to do the work and demonstrate the existence of good sources! Note that the Chinese WP entry is equally badly sourced. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:45, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was just south of an edit conflict. Yes, if these are good sources then they would of course do. Let me google-translate a few. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:47, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alright, that'll do it. In the first two pages of results there are two different component analyses, a case study for therapeutic application, and a mosquite repellent test. Don't think I can fault myself or others for not googling in Chinese, but if someone does, more power to them. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:53, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Graeme Bartlett. There seem to be enough Chinese-language sources to meet GNG. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:51, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NONENG Jumpytoo Talk 20:46, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the others said, per WP:NONENG, it's allowed. Zai ^{(💬 • 📝 • ⚡️)} 14:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. VocalIndia (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2021 (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.