- 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 speedy delete. G11. Salted. The Bushranger One ping only 02:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fuyan Pill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article fails WP:PRODUCT. Previously speedy deleted as an advert, some sources have been added and the article recreated with the same text. There is no sign that the sources make any specific mention of Fuyan Pill as they discuss Chinese herbal medicine in a generic way. I find no matches in GBooks or GNews and a cross-search in JSTOR, SCOPUS and WoS for "Fuyan Pill" finds no academic quality sources that use this term. Fæ (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete per nom. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete and salt I tagged this for speedy the last time round. When I did a search to determine if the product was notable, I was genuinely concerned by some of the pages which I pulled up; there seemed to be quite a number which indicated that this product may a "scam" and a "bogus" medical product. At the very least it is known for being an item constantly spammed on blogs and message boards: a discussion about this seen here. The article itself makes some truly extraordinary unsubstantiated claims (for instance "Fuyan Pill is shown to be effective in eliminating varieties of pathogenic bacteria, such as germs, virus, mycoplasma, Chlamydia, etc") none of which, as Fae points out, can be credibly sourced. Such statements could potentially be very dangerous. France3470 (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I would strongly support salting along with future variations of the name if created. If suitable sources can show this is a notable scam, then there may be grounds for a more balanced article. --Fæ (talk) 10:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's shocking. In that case, certainly Salt. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As seems to be the case with this subject, there is a lot of talk about it but really nothing that could be considered a suitable source of information, either in support of the product or otherwise. I also doubt there is any way for us to reasonably make conclusive decisions about the validly of the product, so it is probably best to err on the side of caution and not have an article unless reliable information is able to be found. France3470 (talk) 10:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 27 October 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.