Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fingernail image diagnosis

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 speedy delete (G7) by DGG. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fingernail image diagnosis

Allegedly from ancient Chinese folk medicine but refs are a bit thin. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article needs a lot of work and as it is, is very POV. But it's a well known idea. Proxy User (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is used as spam, see here. The method of diagnosing via fingernails might be noteable ([1]), but not under that name (seems proprietery to fidhealth), and it would need a *complete* rewrite. Amalthea (talk) 13:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid concept. Article just needs improvement. Hellno2 (talk) 14:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I want to stress that the article says that [Fingernail image diagnosis (FID)] is completely different from conventional fingernail diagnostic method - I agreee that the latter warrants an article, but the former is a non noteable spam article: google has one hit besides Wikipedia, so it fails WP:NOTE. Also note that I suspect strong conflict of interest of the author: his username is Wlactcm, the contact e-mail adress given on http://www.fidhealth.com/contact_us is wlactcmyahoo.com Amalthea (talk) 15:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable in medicine, topic doesn't deserve an article under that title, spam, conflict of interest. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like the !voters are confusing two different concepts. The concept of this article does not reliable sources backing up its claims. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Amalthea et. al. This article makes it pretty clear that it's not referring to the classical Chinese medical technique (which I couldn't find an article on - someone should either write it, or add it as a link on fingernail!), but to a contemporary technique created by Wen-Hua Wang. COI all over the place, and "FID" doesn't appear to be a notable technique (four Google hits on the phrase, two of them from Wikipedia). Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no reliable sources found after a reasonable search. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WhatamIdoing . Edison (talk) 04:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Apparently it has been speedily deleted, supposedly because the author blanked the page [2]. http://www.fidhealth.com/what_is_fid has consequentally lost the "See more on Wikipedia" part. :| Amalthea (talk) 09:17, 17 June 2008 (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.