Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chyawanprash

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Sjakkalle 10:03, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chyawanprash

Seems to be quasi-advertising. Claims unsupported by evidence. Not encyclopedic. Ben-w 08:37, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. I agree. I also notice it is identical to [1]. Which article came first? DoubleBlue (Talk) 08:48, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
  • utcursch's edits have significantly improved this article to the point where I change my vote to keep. However, I think the Benefits section could still use cleaning up, even with the disclaimer. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:39, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I disagree with the view that the topic is not encyclopedic. It is a popular aryuvedic commodity and is widely used. Plus, the product has also been mentioned in ancient Hindu texts. --IncMan 12:34, May 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: Lavish claims that look like a snake oil boast. If rewritten to NPOV, it might vanish altogether. What is it? Has it been clinically examined? If it's a historical entity, then that's all we'd need. Otherwise, this really looks like "Buy my panacea." Geogre 13:08, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
• keep and edit It is true that in its current state the article is not neutral. However, it would appear that this may be an actual folk remedy. If this information can be verified it should be kept but edited to conform to NPOV standards. note: if it can be verified that it is used or exists folklorically, not necessarily the truth of the medical claims.

Above message left by 68.77.242.127 --IncMan 22:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Just visit Dabur.com(Dabur) where ull notice that Chyawanprash is the company's top selling product and the site contains useful information on the topic (beleive me one cant clinically examine the uses of all herbal items. Ayurveda, is a science within itself but differs from modern medical science ). I'm not trying to advertise it, but the product definitely deserves a mention because of its uses and usage (the product is widely available in the Indian market).I have removed the unnecessary content from the article. --IncMan 22:13, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Vuvar1 23:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. Need scientific basis for claims. Capitalistroadster 00:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, even if the claims are true this article comes across as advertising. Megan1967 05:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, ad. Radiant_* 11:19, May 23, 2005 (UTC) Weak keep, seems not to be an ad for a brand, but a description of a type of drink. Radiant_* 11:38, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep If people call this an ad, then may I know what is an informative article in their view. --Marqus 13:38, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Article needs work to make its claims less POV, but google seems to indicate that this herbal remedy is notable. For an Indian remedy, google finds many pages in English. Quale 03:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete promo. JamesBurns 10:33, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advert. Leanne 05:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. This is not an ad, because Dabur is not the only company which sells Chyawanprash. Chyawanprash is not a patented tonic or something. It is ancient Ayurvedic formula, most popular in India. Please do a Google search with alternative spellings Chyavanaprasha, Chyavanaprash, Chyawanaprash etc. before voting delete. I've removed copyvio content from [2] and added some more information. utcursch | talk 11:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It still needs to be improved, including using some of the information from this VFD (such as listing the alternative spellings), but there is no reason as the article is currently written for it to be deleted. BlankVerse ∅ 12:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The idea that ancient Ayurvedic texts specifically mention antioxidants, protein synthesis, Vitamin C etc is screaming at me, not that they would claim these effects similar to this, but that they would use the language like that. For example in claim that It also works as an antioxidant, thus slowing down the ageing process. I'd suggest that the Ayurvedic texts would claim they were anti aging, but the idea that they would claim this stuff is an antioxidant, a very western idea, seems wrong. The Benefits section looks like a modern interpretation of older claims. Until it is seriously cleaned up...No vote Sabine's Sunbird 20:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

• Well, I can tell you atleast 15 inventions which were invented in the East years ago, but were believed to be western ideas. There are several yoga aasans which anti-oxidise the human body and it is clinically proven. Do you think Vitamin C and anti-oxidants is a modern concept? Just tell me, will a common westerner understand a Sanskrit word for anti-oxidants or Vitamin C? So hence using mordern terms to describe the effects of these ancient medicines does make sense. There is no legitimate reason to clean up the article. --Grubb 18:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• This isn't about dissing the East. This tonic may indeed have been used to treat these conditions effectively, in which case they made the link between symptoms and cures. To say that they made the jump to understanding the mechanism of nutrition, oxidation etc you need to provide proof. Sabine's Sunbird 22:26, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• What kind of a proof do you require? Just do a google search and read several articles on its composition and effects. I suggest that you read a book on Acharya Shrishti(i'm not very sure about the name), one of the founders of Ayurveda. U'll realise that how advanced their medical science was. They had carried out human surgical operations in 150 B.C..--Grubb 19:08, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The article is informative and deserves to be in a encyclopedia. --Grubb 18:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep An encyclopedic article on an ayurvedic tonic from the east. deleting this would only further systemic bias. I've improved the article by adding something and wikified a couple of words. --Idleguy 15:07, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.