Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs

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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clinical trials on Ayurvedic drugs (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)

This is a stub article that is not likely to grow because such clinical trials are essentially WP:PRIMARY and it is not likely that reliable WP:MEDRS-quality secondary sources about such trials are going to be created. I note right now that the article is dominated by sources which fail WP:MEDRS for the most part. There is nothing worth keeping. jps (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 16:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A magnet for listing crap studies that report statistical noise as proof that cow urine and toxic metals actually cure something. Pretty much cannot be MEDRS-compliant by its very nature. The Cancer Research UK source may be useful elsewhere though. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or possibly redirect to Ayurveda with the NIH statement there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All the sources are about Ayurveda in general with only limited information on the trials specifically, so the subject does not seem to be notable in its own right. If the content gets to long in the parent article in can be split out then. Seems a bit long for a search term but I am indifferent on it being a redirect.AlmostFrancis (talk) 17:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above; I'm not convinced that the title is a plausible search term, but if we are to have a redirect with this title, I'd rather not have a bunch of WP:MEDRS violations cluttering the page history and risking re-expansion. XOR'easter (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 01:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete doesn't meet the general notability guideline. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clear attempt to establish a non-neutral article on Ayurveda. Per the above, compliance with WP:MEDRS is impossible essentially meaning there are no reliable sources. PainProf (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As a creator, I had found this article useful so had created. But will go as per consensus here. Thank you. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above; creator has consented to deletion meaning this could now be a speedy delete Spiderone 14:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SYNTH, WP:CCC, and WP:SNOW. Wikipedia has avoided merely publishing United States government meta-studies, and this article is a prime example of why we all agree. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 5 August 2020 (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.