- 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. j⚛e decker talk 14:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Kenrico ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article fails to establish the notability of this company or organisation as required by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The references giving within the article are merely out of date business listing, an advert and press release which are not considered sufficient to establish notability. Significant words by reliable secondary sources are required. A search on Google, books and scholar found no such reliable sources, thus the article is proposed for deletion on notability grounds.
The article was put up for PROD but removed by Xoloz because "not clear subject fails WP:GNG -- sourcing is bad, but company has developed major drugs" However, the company has not developed any drugs at all. It makes alternative medicines not drugs. None of the products are notable and no sources to back notability can be found. In any case, notability is not inherited and the manufacturers of a notable product does not automatically make the manufacturer notable.
The company is not notable, there are no reliable sources, the information in the article is not verifiable, there is no likelihood of these circumstances changing. Rincewind42 ( talk) 07:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be utterly un-notable producer of woo nonsense; more or less advertising, and created by an SPA. Imaginatorium ( talk) 11:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. -- DAJF ( talk) 13:37, 8 May 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.
- 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. j⚛e decker talk 14:57, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Kenrico ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article fails to establish the notability of this company or organisation as required by Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). The references giving within the article are merely out of date business listing, an advert and press release which are not considered sufficient to establish notability. Significant words by reliable secondary sources are required. A search on Google, books and scholar found no such reliable sources, thus the article is proposed for deletion on notability grounds.
The article was put up for PROD but removed by Xoloz because "not clear subject fails WP:GNG -- sourcing is bad, but company has developed major drugs" However, the company has not developed any drugs at all. It makes alternative medicines not drugs. None of the products are notable and no sources to back notability can be found. In any case, notability is not inherited and the manufacturers of a notable product does not automatically make the manufacturer notable.
The company is not notable, there are no reliable sources, the information in the article is not verifiable, there is no likelihood of these circumstances changing. Rincewind42 ( talk) 07:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Seems to be utterly un-notable producer of woo nonsense; more or less advertising, and created by an SPA. Imaginatorium ( talk) 11:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. Not seeing sufficient third-party sourcing or in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. -- DAJF ( talk) 13:37, 8 May 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.