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. Favonian ( talk) 20:29, 10 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Nano-ayurvedic medicine

Nano-ayurvedic medicine (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)

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

Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM: No different than, and not independent from, Ayurvedic medicine. Slapping 'nano' in front of it doesn't make it any less quantum woo. What's next, relativistic water memory? Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete and WP:SALT. There simply isn't sufficient WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, and it will need to be salt-ed, because POV-pushers keep trying to recreate it, without improving it, against consensus. See also the discussion at WP:FTN#Nano-ayurvedic medicine, again. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Saw this at FTN, and I agree it's a WP:NEOLOGISM with pretty clear WP:MEDRS issues in terms of satisfying anything close to notability, nor does this seem like a useful redirect in that context. Given the recreation going on, a salt does seem warranted. Ayurvedic medicine already exists, so if anything ever was going to take hold with this term, content could be developed there and WP:SPLIT out on the off chance there was a notable topic at hand. I wouldn't condone that right now with what I'm seeing right now, but the option means there's no strong argument against salting. KoA ( talk) 21:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete I just removed two statements from the article that radically misrepresented the cited sources, but overall I think the article is hopeless. I only looked at the two sources I removed, but neither used the term "nano-Ayurvedic medicine" or even mentioned Ayurveda, and neither dealt with direct clinical trials of any "nano-Ayurvedic" drug. Not a good look, especially since WP:MEDRS would presumably apply to this topic. I would not oppose a salt. WeirdNAnnoyed ( talk) 00:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Current Molecular Pharmacology and Journal of Integrative Medicine are not RS. — hako9 ( talk) 02:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete Nano-bollocks. Even ignoring for a second the fact that Ayurveda is pseudoscience, the statement that claims that "nano-delivery systems" can increase the efficacy of a drug whilst removing its side effects is - well, bollocks. Black Kite (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Ayurveda and at least EC protect it. Even if there were MEDRS available on this topic, the context on the overall approach that is present in the main article would be needed to avoid non-compliance with WP:FRINGE. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delete and WP:SALT, per Tryptofish and others. Unadulterated nonsense with a minimal chance of ever being notable, never mind true. Brusquedandelion ( talk) 00:48, 5 June 2024 (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.