Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gemmotherapy

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. My reading of the discussion is that this is crap, but it's crap that

WP:RS have written about. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Gemmotherapy

[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)

WP:BEFORE, but the tagging user (Delta13C, renamed to Dino monster just before vanishing) did, and from the titles alone I can immediately tell that all the sources are likely fringe as well. Mainstream analysis demanded since September 2011. (Delta13C found no evidence of mainstream sources.) The lack of edits, as well as being an orphan, is a sign that this alternative treatment is not notable. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:27, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ – Firstly,
GNG and looks reliable plus directly referencing this gemmotherapy because I'm half-convinced that there are a few (smaller than this) studies by the name from sifting through google. I've also found this but it's not as solid a source. Anyhow, as you sift further you find more and more sources, this source even asserting there are hundreds of European sources available, but most of them aren't in English. I'm 90% sure that these refer to the same gemmotherapy in the article, but only in one am I fully sure. All in all, there are plenty of sources; it just needs to be expanded. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Change to ~~Neutral~~ upon further reflection. Will look more. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as all there seems to be are fringe scientists writing books, a Tasmanian family, and Fox News. Sure there's some reliable source among the several hundred asserted but I don't have the time to find it. J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 03:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources is the Pharmacopée Francaise, which seems to be mainstream (now replaced by the European Pharmacopoeia). Is there significant coverage or just a mention? Peter James (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per sources here: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemmoth%C3%A9rapie#Notes_et_r%C3%A9f%C3%A9rences
Keep. As a lot of things in herbal medicine, this may not be scientifically proven, but passes WP:GNG based on publications noted on the page and during this AfD. Even simple Google search for books [1] shows the subject is clearly notable. My very best wishes (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Looks to be notable even if its fringe and needs some improvement.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 20:00, 29 July 2019 (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.