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. Golbez 21:55, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Terrible ad about an insignificant Chinese company. It will never become a full article, and if we took out all of the self-promotion there would be nothing left. Falcon 05:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep as the article has been given new life. Falcon 03:03, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete shameless advertising... Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 05:35, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that it has been fixed up nicely. Good job to BD2412. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 23:06, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising. JamesBurns 06:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising -CunningLinguist 07:26, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep due to re-write -CunningLinguist 17:21, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

*Delete as spam. Jamyskis 07:35, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) Keep in light of rewrite. Jamyskis 20:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep, cleanup. Real company, very big in China, really is centuries old. This comes from the Chinese gov't.. See also google: Results 1 - 10 of about 10,600 for "Tong Ren Tang" OR Tongrentang. As I said in another vfd once, you wouldn't vote to delete a total advertisement for Coca Cola, you'd fix it. -- BD2412 ^talk 16:12, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
  • I've added some info about their legal problems - it's definitely not an advert anymore! ;-) -- BD2412 ^talk 02:14, 2005 Jun 14 (UTC)
• Keep. Per BDAbramsom. Thanks CunningLinguist. DS1953 20:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and thanks BD2412. Kappa 22:53, 13 Jun 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.