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. postdlf (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Herbal Formulas and Applications

[edit]

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

Books doesn't meet any of the criteria for book notability. Article seems more promotional as well. Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. I couldn't find anything at all substantial about this book, and it has been cited only twice according to Google Scholar. Clearly not notable by any stretch of the imagination. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – couldn't find any relevant third-party sources. --SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 03:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A book with no significant coverage. SL93 (talk) 18:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't find sufficient support to pass WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Zad68 01:41, 5 August 2013 (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.