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. I have read the entire AFD and do understands DHowell's concern of a speedy close, but after reviewing all the comments, the consensus indicates the POV-fork nature and SYN of the articles prevents their inclusion and that therefore they should be deleted. MBisanz ^talk 04:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Herb (TCM Classification) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Herb (General Usage Part 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Herb (General Usage Part 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Herb (Chinese-Japanese Common Herbs) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Herb (formulas) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Herb (patents) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Herb (anti-oxidant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Herb (anti-cancer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Herb (hyperlipidemia) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Herb (Meanings of Terms) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Group of articles all created by one user. The majority of the content is a directory of herbs with their supposed uses, not encyclopedia material. May be better suited for Wikibooks. BJ^Talk 08:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all ASAP. Several problems here. First a lot of this is original synthesis. Second, the sources used are suspect. I don't think books written from the perspective of traditional Chinese medicine are reliable. These studies aren't put to the rigorous standards that research in a Western medical journal are. Frankly, this could be bad and potentially dangerous information that could hurt people's health. I think these should be removed as soon as possible.Nrswanson (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source in herb (anti-oxidant), for starters, is a "Western journal". It's Food Research International, the journal of the Canadian Institute of Food Science and Technology, whose editorial board, listed here, comprises editors from the University of Guelph, the University of Manitoba, Cornell University, and others. The authors of the specific journal article cited are from Shaanxi Normal University, and at least one of whom, Qiu, is a professor. These people are not fringe quacks, and the journal that they published in does not lack peer review.

    And that's just one of the articles. Herb (formulas) cites articles in the Journal of Ethnopharmacology, the peer-reviewed journal of the International Society for Ethnopharmacology, the International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, the peer-reviewed journal of the International Society of Chemotherapy, and Phytomedicine, the peer-reviewed journal of the European Scientific Cooperative on Phytomedicine, whose editorial board is listed here. Herb (General Usage Part 3) cites articles in those journals and yet others still.

    Nor can one even argue that the articles are taking sources and mis-using them. Several of the sources are clearly on-point from their very titles. Take source #38 from Herb (General Usage Part 3), for example: "Plants used in Chinese and Indian traditional medicine for improvement of memory and cognitive function" is clearly directly on-point as can be seen from its title. And again, the journal that it was published in, Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior, is yet another "Western journal". One of its editors-in-chief is from the University of Sussex. He's this person. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above --Anti I A (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - I understand that in British law there are specific rules against claiming that your product treats cancer. That aside, these article are all unverifiable hearsay, presented in an unencyclopedic way. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • University researchers publishing research articles on Chinese and Indian traditional medicine herbs and food science, in peer-reviewed international journals, is "hearsay"? Content that cites these articles with proper, full, citations, is "unverifiable"? I suggest reading the actual articles at hand, and checking the sources that they cite, not just basing one's opinion on what is written in this discussion. Uncle G (talk) 13:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I tried reading the only source given on the 'cancer' page; it crashed my browser. In any case, the 'cancer' page is just a list with little context. I remain unconvinced by this walled garden. Any verifiable information can be merged to existing appropriate articles on herbs, herbalism, or the individual plants. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The link you mentioned is to patentstorm.us and it should not crash your browser. Perhaps you can try again using another browser or a different computer? http://www.patentstorm.us/applications/20050025841/fulltext.html Cottonball (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, it works on a different machine. It's not clear from the patentstorm page whether a patent was granted; anyone can apply for a patent for practically anything, as I understand it. I don't think this is a reliable source. AlexTiefling (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A few other sources have been included. These are based on published papers. Cottonball (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The anti-cancer citations are from these journals:

1. Analytical Biochemistry : Analytical Biochemistry, Methods in the Biological Sciences, emphasizes methods in the biological and biochemical sciences.
2. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy : Biomedicine and pharmacotherapy is one of the few journals at the forefront of fundamental and technical science, biological and medical disciplines, therapeutics and pathological description.
3. Bioresource Technology : The journal publishes original papers, review articles, case studies and other material for the professional in the fundamentals, applications and management of bioresource technology.
4. Cancer Letters : CANCER LETTERS is a journal providing rapid publication of brief articles in the broad area of cancer research.
5. Carbohydrate Polymers : Carbohydrate Polymers covers the study and exploitation of carbohydrate polymers which have current or potential industrial application in areas such as food, textiles, paper, wood, adhesives, biodegradables, biorefining, pharmaceuticals, and oil recovery.
6. FEBS Letters : The subject area of FEBS Letters is broad. It covers biochemistry (including protein chemistry, enzymology, nucleic acid chemistry, metabolism, and immunochemistry), structural biology, biophysics, computational biology (genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics), molecular genetics, molecular biology and molecular cell biology (signal transduction, intracellular traffic, regulation of cellular proliferation, cell-cell interactions) and systems biology.
7. Food and Chemical Toxicology : Food and Chemical Toxicology publishes original research reports and occasional interpretative reviews on the toxic effects, in animals or humans, of natural or synthetic chemicals occurring in the human environment.
8. Food Chemistry : Food Chemistry publishes original research papers dealing with the chemistry and biochemistry of foods and raw materials covering the entire food chain from `farm to fork.'
9. Gynecologic Oncology : Gynecologic Oncology, an international journal, is devoted to the publication of clinical and investigative articles that concern tumors of the female reproductive tract.
10. Journal of Ethnopharmacology : The Journal of Ethnopharmacology is dedicated to the exchange of information and understandings about people's use of plants, fungi, animals, microorganisms and minerals and their biological and pharmacological effects based on the principles established through international conventions.
11. Leukemia Research : Leukemia Research is an international journal which brings comprehensive and current information to all health care professionals involved in basic and (or) applied clinical research in leukemias, lymphomas, multiple myeloma and other hematologic malignancies.
12. Microbiological Research : Microbiological Research is devoted to publishing reports on prokaryotic and eukaryotic microorganisms such as yeasts, fungi, bacteria, archaea, and protozoa.
13. Peptides : Peptides is an international journal presenting original contributions on the chemistry, biochemistry, neurochemistry, endocrinology, gastroenterology, physiology, and pharmacology of peptides, as well as their neurological, psychological and behavioral effects.
14. Phytomedicine : Phytomedicine is published to attract and disseminate innovative and expert findings in the fields of phytopharmacology, phytotherapy and phytotoxicology, as a reference source for researchers in these fields, and with the aim to set international standards in their methodology.
15. Process Biochemistry : Process Biochemistry is an application–orientated research journal devoted to reporting advances with originality and novelty, in the science and technology of the processes involving bioactive molecules or elements, and living organisms.
16. Steroids : Steroids is an international journal devoted to original research on all aspects of steroids.
17. Trends in Molecular Medicine : Trends in Molecular Medicine's objective is to facilitate communication between groups of highly trained professionals with distinct backgrounds and skills, whose common goals are to understand and explain the molecular basis of disease with a view to new clinical practice.

Cottonball (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as a classic case of WP:WALL that cannot be fixed with any straightfoward merge process. WillOakland (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not a wall as it does not satisfy the definition "but do not have any links to or from anything outside the group". For example, in the main article 'Herb usage', there are 23 references, out of which 8 of them are links to sites that do not link back to 'Herb usage'. The others are references to published materials. Similarly, the other parts have links to sites "outside the group". Cottonball (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• One of the links mentioned above is to the Korean Traditional Knowledge Portal, a well-researched site with details on about 5,000 herbs. http://www.koreantk.com/en/m_sta/med_stat_search.jsp?searchGbn=statis. Cottonball (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand WP:WALL to refer to interwiki links, not external links which would be expected in a walled garden created as a web site mirror or a promotion. 12:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• Inter-wiki links would include links to Indian Traditional Medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_herbs_and_minerals_in_Ayurveda), Japanese Traditional Medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampo, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampo_herb_list, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampo_list) as well as other articles on Traditional Chinese Medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_herbology).

• Delete - the extent of the WP:WALL isn't fully displayed above, there are many more articles (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Article list for a full list). I recently took some of them to AfD (here) but there was no consensus. Also see the discussion at WT:PLANTS (here). The article lists essentially tell you very little (or nothing). The first two columns are different non-English names for these "herbs", the fourth is a "Latin name" and the third is a rough English translation of the Latin (probably from one of the search engines or translation guides in a WP:LINKFARM article the editor also started: Herb (Translation of herb names)). What do we get out of all this? We know four ways to say or read the name of an "herb", but we don't know the species or anything about it other than the source of the material based on the article names: root, tuber, stem, etc. What would be much more helpful and useful as an article would be a List of plants used in traditional Chinese medicine or something like that, arranged by type of material (root, stem, etc.) and then by species, but I think none of the existing information would be salvageable. --Rkitko ^(talk) 13:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) As given above, the relevant links prove that it is not a wall, so displaying more articles cannot prove that it is a wall. (2) I have no doubt that the articles can be more useful than their current form, but this is not a criterion for deletion. Rather, it is a criterion for improving the articles. If the articles are deleted, they cannot be improved, so the move to delete them based on this reason is self-contradictory. Kindly reconsider. Cottonball (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I read WP:WALL, the existence of external links is irrelevant to whether or not it is a walled garden in Wikipedia terms. The problem is that the pages are not integrated into the rest of WikiPedia. (Note the example of the older, and competing, page on Chinese herbology). Lavateraguy (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong opposition to stated deletion reasons. Delete I still don't know if the article is useful or not, Cottonball's answer on the article talk page was really no help whatsoever. However, I don't see a proper reason for deletion listed. "Group of articles all created by one user." I'm writing a group of articles about Berkeley Geochronology Center and their scientists. Are you going to delete all of my articles because they are a "group of articles created by one user?" Is this a valid reason for deletion? "The majority of the content is a directory of herbs with their supposed uses, not encyclopedia material." What? Of course herbs with their supposed uses are part of an encyclopedia! It's called economic botany--figures we don't have an article on that, probably deleted because plants and their supposed uses isn't encyclopedic. Wikipedia has hundreds, maybe thousands of articles on herbs or their components and their supposed uses. We have an editor who does nothing but add molecules from plants and their supposed uses, and I've never seen one of his articles in an AfD because their content is inherently encyclopedic. "May be better suited for Wikibooks." How so? I still can't even read the article, so I am curious how you say it is for Wiki books. I am going to ask other plant editors to weigh in on this AfD as it seems to be attempting to set dangerous precedent to delete economic botany articles under the guise of WP:I just don't like it. --KP Botany (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure but if these articles are kept, they need a ton of cleanup. As for WP:WALL, I see a pretty solid wall (sure it may have a few chinks, but it needs tearing down). For example, why are all the specific plants on Herb usage not linked to their articles for example? Another way of saying it is whether Herb usage is a content fork of Chinese herbology. Kingdon (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the creator said they were forked due to a request, which kinda does make them a wall. the intent is to make it an article about traditional uses of herbs, rather than just Chinese herbology (which is usually called Traditional Chinese medicine, academically, hope we don't have two such articles). Yes, they're not readable, ton of cleanup is nice. Oh, I see, TCM is all traditional Chinese medicines, not just the herbs, as I use the term. --KP Botany (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Herb usage is not a good title - on the one hand the content neglects usage in European and Indian (and presumably other) materia medica, and ethnopharmacology, and the culinary and cosmetic usages of herbs, on the other hand it proposes to include non-herbal elements of the traditional Chinese materia medica. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (1) There is a section on Indian traditional herbs in the article. Regarding European herb usage, i thought that they are already well represented in Wikipedia.(2) Initially, non-herbal elements have been included, but i have removed all of them (afaik) as there were objections to including them as "herbs". What is left behind is just a statement that these elements are used in TCM materia medica, but no names, usage or references are given. Cottonball (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DeleteMerge/Move to other articles and leave redirects behind. The content here should be reflected in navboxes and categories, once properly sourced content is added to the relevant articles. For example, any reliably sourced content in Herb (hyperlipidemia) instead should go in Hyperlipidemia, in the Treatment section, and in an article about each herb, in the Uses section. --Una Smith (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't follow you here. There should be no aggregate article on the usage of herbs in medicine? I doubt that is what you are saying, so please clarify about the main article only, as the forks cannot be redeemed as far as I can tell. Rather, the content of the main article, if its intention is to be an article about traditional uses of herbs, particularly title and general content of such an article. --KP Botany (talk) 23:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KP Botany, I am making no statement about the meta-question you pose; this AfD concerns only these particular articles, their present content, and what to do now. For example, I worked text from Herb (hyperlipidemia) into Hyperlipidemia. The source does not apply; it concerns a patent for a formulation of multiple plants. It does not establish use in traditional Chinese medicine nor efficacy in humans. --Una Smith (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The meta question is only about the herb usage article, so I don't know what happened to the hyperlipidemia article. I found the tangents impossible to follow, though, as they're not really articles. Good luck to you on them. Patent formulations are not reliable sources. --KP Botany (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • I do see what you mean about the particular articles, though. Just not how that applies to the main article. --KP Botany (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The main article being Herb usage? That is hard to say because the subject is so ill-defined. Does herb mean herbaceous plant? Does use mean medicinal use? I don't know and I suppose Cottonball may not know either. --Una Smith (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herb as in herbal medicine doesn't even necessary mean plant, but refers to the primary use of plants for medicinal purposes. In this article, I can't even read it, so it's hard to know what is meant, but from talk page discussion it appears to mean traditional use of primarily plants for medicinal purposes. There may be a language issue with Cottonball that is making the proplem worse, as I don't think he/she is addressing the purpose of an encyclopedia article, so it's hard to really say anything. Probably merge, verify redirects, and leave them behind would be useful, although verification first. --KP Botany (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Random collection of unverifiable information. JFW | T@lk 22:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verifiable published information referenced by the article can be found in the following journals (this is a sample and not a complete list), together with a short introduction of the respective journal:

1. Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease : "The purpose of Advances Chronic Kidney Disease is to provide in-depth, scholarly review articles about the care and management of persons with early kidney disease and kidney failure, as well as those at risk for kidney disease."
2. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry : "Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry provides an international forum for the publication of full original research papers and critical reviews on molecular interactions in key biological targets such as receptors, channels, enzymes, nucleotides, lipids and saccharides."
3. Carbohydrate Research : "Since its inception in 1965, Carbohydrate Research has gained a reputation for its high standard and wide scope which includes all aspects of carbohydrate chemistry and biochemistry. Articles published in the journal cover sugars and their derivatives (also cyclitols, and model compounds for carbohydrate reactions), oligo- and polysaccharides, nucleosides, nucleotides, and glycoconjugates."
4. European Journal of Cancer and Clinical Oncology : "The European Journal of Cancer (including EJC Supplements) is the official Journal of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), the European CanCer Organisation (ECCO), the European Association for Cancer Research (EACR), the the European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists (EUSOMA) and the European School of Oncology (ESO). "
5. European Journal of Pharmacology : "The European Journal of Pharmacology publishes full-length papers on the mechanisms of action of chemical substances affecting biological systems. "
6. Enzyme and Microbial Technology : "Enzyme and Microbial Technology is an international, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research and reviews, of biotechnological significance and novelty, on basic and applied aspects of the use of enzymes, micro-organisms, animal cells and plant cells. "
7. Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology : "Environmental Toxicology and Pharmacology publishes the results of studies concerning toxic and pharmacological effects of (human and veterinary) drugs and of environmental contaminants in animals and man."
8. Fitoterapia : "Fitoterapia is a Journal dedicated to medicinal plants and to bioactive natural products of plant origin."
9. Journal of Ethnopharmacology : "The Official Journal of the International Society for Ethnopharmacology. The Journal of Ethnopharmacology is dedicated to the exchange of information and understandings about people's use of plants, fungi, animals, microorganisms and minerals and their biological and pharmacological effects based on the principles established through international conventions."
10. Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
11. Maturitas : "The Official Journal of the European Menopause and Andropause Society (EMAS). Maturitas is an international multidisciplinary peer reviewed scientific journal of midlife health and beyond publishing original research, reviews, consensus statements and guidelines. "
12. Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis : "Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis. A Sponsored Journal of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists. This journal is an international medium directed towards the needs of academic, clinical, government and industrial analysis by publishing original research reports and critical reviews on pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis."
13. Life Sciences : "Life Sciences is an international journal publishing articles that emphasize the molecular, cellular, and functional basis of therapy. All articles are rigorously reviewed. "
14. Pharmacological Research : "Pharmacological Research provides a rapid information exchange medium for specialists within the discipline of pharmacology." Cottonball (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the issue, Cottonball. The problem is the article is just not an encyclopedia article, it's a list of herbs with bullet points. Read today's main page Featured Article, whatever it is. It tells a story about the subject of the article. Your articles don't even have complete sentences, just phrases and words sprinkled here and there.

An article is an essay on a topic. It has an introduction that's an introduction to the topic, rather than an introduction that says, "this article will talk about herb usage," as your article's introduction is. The introduction is not necessarily labeled, and it doesn't come after the introduction. You don't have to say what the article is about, because that is the point of having a title. The London article is about London, it doesn't say, "This article will discuss the London metropolitan area," it just does that.

You must write complete sentences in English that convey a thought. They have to be in a logical order. They have to include what's relevant, and the article, overall, should develop what is relevant as it moves from beginning, the introduction, through the middle, the bulk of the discussion, to the end.

Wikipedia already has an article on Traditional Chinese Medicine, which appears to be where you're going now.

This simply is not an encyclopedia article.

--KP Botany (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • My above reply is in response to the "unverifiable information" issue raised by JFW. It lists 14 reputable journals where information can be verified; it is not aimed at addressing all issues simultaneously, as it is beyond my ability to do so. Cottonball (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You asked me to write an Introduction, and i am in the process of doing so. Please be patient while it is being written in logical order. As far as i can see, many articles contain tables/lists, so their existence per se should not preclude their existence in Wikipedia. An example is this AfD page where a list of 14 journals is found.Cottonball (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, spare me, I'm the only person here not voting for deletion, and you simply won't work with me to improve the article. Focusing now on me, rather than the article isn't going to help matters. I give up. --KP Botany (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please do not take this personally, as my intention is not to "focus on you", anymore than it is to focus on other WP administrators here. Rather, it is to focus on the points raised. In this respect, i have to address the issues you raised, even if you are the only person here NOT voting for deletion. But i suppose this doesn't matter anymore, as discussion has unilaterally ceased. Cottonball (talk) 07:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • What parts did you try to verifiy, JFW? Please elaborate so you can show to Cottonball how the article is unverifiable.
    • However, Cottonball, it does not matter. What is important is that your article is a "random collection" of information, not an article. There are articles that are lists, yours is not titled "List," as are lists. Articles include tables and images, that does not mean a table alone or an image alone is a stand-alone article. Lists are related to an article, tables are parts of articles, images go in articles or lists or tables.
      • What JFW said matters to me, that's why i attempted to address it. However, this discussion seems to be morphing into a random walk with no end in sight, as i doubt changing the title to "Lists" will make it acceptable to you. Cottonball (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Your article is a random collection of words and bullet points so far associated with Chinese Traditional Medicine. As said before, we already have an article on TCM.
      • There seems to be 2 points here: (1) The use of the word "random" as a criterion for deletion, but in what way is this applicable? (2) The assumption that a general article on TCM will preclude all other discussions or subsets of this topic, just like an article on "Great Britain" will preclude an article on London. i fail to see the logic of this. Cottonball (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I suggest you ask someone to move the article to your user space, or move it yourself, work on it there, and when you think you have an article, I will be glad to look it over.
    • This is what your introduction still says, and the edit history[1] says you have not even touched it yet:

    • "This article discusses the use of herbs for various physical needs in a very simplified way. As the use of herbs to treat diseases can be complicated, depending on the condition of the patient, the stage of treatment, as well as other herbs/drugs that are taken, this article is not to be used for self-prescription, and neither is it to be used for prescribing for others. This is especially true for large dosages, repeated or long-term use of herbs or herbal formulas."

      • i changed the Introduction [2] a number of times, as shown in its edit history. Cottonball (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • An article begins, "Herb usage is how people in various cultures traditionally use herbs..." It does not begin, "This article discusses...." We know that the article discusses "herb usage" because this is an encyclopedia and the article is titled "herb usage," and that's how encyclopedia's work, they tell the user about a topic based upon the article title. Please, just take it to user space, work on it, get it to where others can understand what you're doing. That's what sandboxes are for, places to write and create. You can even do this offline. --KP Botany (talk) 04:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The response has been moved here. [3] Cottonball (talk) 07:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A related problem is Chinese herbology which I think should be moved again to Chinese materia medica. What I now think Cottonball wants to write about is the use of crude medicine in general, not limited to traditional Chinese medicine; the Chinese materia medica is the Chinese pharmacopoeia of crude medicines. So at this moment I would merge Herb usage into Crude medicine. However, I have not looked at all other articles in this cluster. --Una Smith (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, crude medicine is the ingredients for the pharmacopia, and materia medica is more like the Physician's Desk Reference plus some of the pharmacopia, and the crude medicine, since we're discussing herbal remedies here. Chinese materia medica should probably be a section in Chinese herbology, or its own article, rather than the primary article. You may be correct that what Cottonball is attempting is a general article on crude medicine, as that is what appears to be the subject matter of the articles. It had not occurred to me that what I was thinking and what he/she was writing were so far apart. Still it now appears that the purpose of the original article is original research! This could be discussed in WP:Plants or on the various article pages. I think most of the articles are in poor condition, possibly due to limited editing in those arenas maybe because of the rabid anti-pseudoscience quacks. --KP Botany (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: As far as I can tell no justification has been presented for having this article in addition to already existing articles on traditional Chinese medicine, herbalism, Chinese herbology, Ayurveda, List of plants used as medicine, Phytopharmacology, etc. What does article provide that the others don't? and why should it be in a separate series of articles? (See WP:WALL.)
  • The original article (Herb usage) was more than 100kB long, and i was asked to split it, so that it becomes more accessible/readable. Wikipedia:SPLIT Cottonball (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're missing the point. The question is not whether you should write one article or many; it's whether you should write new articles rather than adding to the existing articles on the same subject. See WP:Content forking. Lavateraguy (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • As some of the articles are rather short (List of plants used as medicine and Phytopharmacology), adding/merging will simply mean that most of the materials will be from Herb usage, and the same comments will probably apply. i am open to merging if it does not cause the other articles to be deleted. Cottonball (talk) 14:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Furthermore the author writes "i believe that plants hold a lot of secrets that we have yet to explore or understand, and traditional sources can offer interesting leads." While this is a legitimate position, the author gives the impression that he is writing from a position of advocacy, and I fear that it will lead him to violate WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP; his material may be better suited to being presented on his own site, or at Wikibooks. He should consider how he would react to the addition of citations of papers finding herbal medicines to be inferior, ineffective or harmful to the pages (see WP:OWN). Therefore I propose that what material is salvageable is be merged into appropriate articles (as has been down at hyperlipidemia).
  • i can hardly object to findings that show herbs to be "inferior, ineffective or harmful", for the same reasons that texts in TCM actually do so. Finding inferior and ineffective herbs will sieve them out, resulting in superior and effective ones. Similarly, it is the practice of TCM texts to list "harmful" herbs, that is, herbs that are toxic all the time, and those that are toxic some of the time (contraindications). i am not writing from a position of advocacy, as i feel that such findings should be welcomed instead of rejected, for they add to our store of collected knowledge. Knowing what is wrong is as important as, if not more so than, knowing what is right, for they are two sides of the same coin. Cottonball (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It may be that these concerns are unwarranted, but it would be preferable to resolve the issue now, rather than deal with a potential can of worms down the line.
• Perhaps the author could discuss his aims at his own talk page, and see whether they can be reconciled with Wikipedia's aims.
• A less ambitious project would be to expand, and split as appropriate, relevant sections of herbalism (risks to health, effectiveness, clinical studies). The current ambitious goal has led to a supposedly general page that rapidly focuses on TCM, which is not a desirable state of affairs. Lavateraguy (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and/or rename all. This is complicated. These seem to be well-sourced, so in the interests of preserving information these should be salvaged in some form. I'll address these each separately:
  • Merge and redirect sourced and verifiable information in Herb usage to Herbalism. This is a content fork and should be covered in the already existing article about the topic.
  • Rename Herb (TCM Classification) to List of herb categories in traditional Chinese medicine, and possibly merge to Chinese herbology.
  • Merge Herb (General Usage Part 1), Herb (General Usage Part 2), and Herb (General Usage Part 3) to List of herbs used in traditional Chinese medicine. Possibly merge to List of plants used as medicine.
  • Rename Herb (Chinese-Japanese Common Herbs) to List of herbs used in multiple traditional medicine practices, and merge in the "Herbs common to..." sections of Herb usage.
  • Rename Herb (formulas) to Traditional herbal formulas and possibly merge to Chinese classic herbal formula.
  • Rename Herb (patents) to List of patented traditional herbal formulas.
  • Merge Herb (preparation) to Traditional herbal formulas.
  • Rename Herb (anti-oxidant) to List of herbs with anti-oxidant capacity.
  • Rename Herb (anti-cancer) to List of herbs used in the treatment or prevention of cancer.
  • Merge Herb (hyperlipidemia) to Hyperlipidemia#Treatment.
  • Rename Herb (Meanings of Terms) to Glossary of traditional herbal medicine, and probably merge the definitions of individual terms into the articles in which they are used, and the other notes where they would be most appropriate.

I do not envy the admin who closes this discussion, but I hope that it is not closed as delete simply because other options would be more difficult. DHowell (talk) 06:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • i agree with DHowell's proposal to Merge and/or rename all. Cottonball (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2009 (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.