Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ch'ang Ming

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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Also note that the nominator (diff) withdrew in a later comment in the discussion (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ch'ang Ming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not a single reference or external link is independent, all written by a Chee Soo. The article states: "Ch'ang Ming is practised by groups who... were students of Chee Soo."

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The references included in this article are published by an independent and reputable publisher namely Harpercollins. Wikipedia recommendations state that references can be included if they are from reliable sources, these sources are not self published but from an internationally known and respected publisher. This book was published in several languages by several other well known international publishers. I have amended the article with a reference to the earlier first edition paperback version.

"Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."

"Books published by respected publishing houses"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources

Chuangzu (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I need to make other Wikipedians aware that you are the creator of the page. Thanks for your reply. However, only 1 reference was published by Harpercollins (originally by an Aquarian Press). The others were all published by "Seahorse Books", which appears non-independent. Who are the "several other well known international publishers" that you speak of? Timmyshin (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• These references are from "The Tao of Long Life" which was originally published by Gordon & Cremonesi of London and New York in 1979 (ISBN 0860330680) and reprinted in 1982 in paperback by Aquarian Press (ISBN 0850303206) an imprint of Harpercollins. After the death of the author the license was transferred to Seahorse Books who reprinted it in 2008 with a different cover hence the new ISBN number. This is the edition that is currently in print and is the one Wikipedia readers are most likely to encounter today for example on Amazon, but it remains unchanged from the original. Harpercollins licensed it out in 1983 as "Le Tao de Longue Vie" ISBN 2890441539 published by Le Jour, Éditeur, Division de Sogides Ltée and distributed in Canada by Agence de distribution populaire inc, in France and Africa by Inter-forum, and in Belgium, Switzerland, Portugal and les pays de l'est (Eastern Europe) by S.A.Vander, in 1985 as "Il Tao di Lunga Vita" ISBN 8844300575 published by Siad Editoni in Milan, Italy, in 1986 as "El Tao de la Salud" ISBN 8472451631 published by Editorial Kairos in Barcelona, Spain, and in 1996 as "Hidup sehat menurut Tao" ISBN 9796053624 published in Indonesia by Penerbit PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama of Jakarta. There is also a chapter devoted to Ch'ang Ming in "Taoistisches Heilen" published in 1989 in Germany by Kösel (ISBN 3466342287). There are various other books and website articles referring to Ch'ang Ming on the internet but I thought it better to limit the scope of the article and confine the references to the better known publication by Chee Soo. Chuangzu (talk) 00:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't find sources others than those attributed to Chee Soo as author. For a truly notable diet, I would have expected to find numerous secondary sources, but I find none. Fails WP:GNG. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 22:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve in that case. Delete at best as the current article including the listed sources are not convincing for the needed notability improvements. Asking DGG for familiar analysis. SwisterTwister talk 07:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought Chang Ming diet was a general term for a Taoist diet. At the moment, Wikipedia seems to have a page named Chang Ming which redirects to Taoist diet. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Interesting. I found a series of columns from The Straits Times issues of 1984-85 talking about the Chang Ming diet. [1],[2],[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]. All of them have been written by the same columnist. This says "Chang Ming diet, formulated by ancient Taoists" while this mentions a book by Chee Soo in the bibliography. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: So you're saying that this diet was published in Britain, America, Canada, France, Belgium, Africa, Switzerland, Portugal, Eastern Europe, Italy, Spain, and Indonesia over a period of over ten years and was a best seller with numerous reprints for one of the top five major international publishers, it's still in print today thirty seven years later and yet it's not notable? I added some extra links to the section on websites advocating Ch'ang Ming diet I found on Google [9],[10],[11],[12],[13],[14],[15],[16], and I changed that redirect from Chang Ming which is a Pinyin style spelling of Ch'ang Ming the more common term still in use because "Chang Ming" is not a generic name for any Taoist Diet. By the way most of those 34 The Straits Times articles [17] directly relate to "The Tao of Long Life" and so does Aileen Yeoh's book published in 2004. Is there a problem with space on Wikipedia or something, how big is the text file that makes up this page I wonder? Chuangzu (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. but trim. There's enough evidence that it's notable, though it is notoriously difficult to show it precisely according to our usual standards for this sort of topic. DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, I am still undecided. I'm not sure if using the Aileen Yeoh links (I posted above) as references would be appropriate, since this report by the Singapore Medical Association has actually questioned some of her claims. I will have a look at this article in detail later to ensure that there are no contentious claims in this article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• If you read the full article you have posted above you will see that there is some question about the SMA article taking some statements out of context, after all it's just another column in the same newspaper not a clinical evaluation, and she has written a response. It looks to me like they are splitting hairs. Whatever the case this is only one of thirty four articles, isn't Wikipedia meant to be informative not interpretive? I suggest we keep these references and let people make their own minds up about the context of the information. Doctors and alternative medicine practitioners do not necessarily share the same methodology, or analysis, so there's always going to be some debate. In Chinese medicine in particular the diagnosis and classification of disease is completely different to the Western medical corpus. I have tried to research Aileen Yeoh but she seems to have disappeared off the face of the Earth after she wrote these articles, are you in Singapore @Lemongirl942:, any ideas? Chuangzu (talk) 09:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm going to answer in detail later. A bit short of time right now so I will put my !vote. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but trim certain content. Notable as can be seen from the Straits Times references. However the article needs to be trimmed of certain content, particularly the section Advocates of the Ch'ang Ming diet, some of which relies on primary sources/non-reliable sources and part of which may be original research as well. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 05:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn as nominator User:Chuangzu and User:lemongirl942 have provided many independent links. Timmyshin (talk) 20:55, 10 May 2016 (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.