User talk:Sam1liverpool/Betrinac

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because... How can I improve this page?--Sam1liverpool (talk) 16:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Follow the policy on WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:MEDICAL. It is gives you great advice on making an article of your nature.  It also appears to be promoting the treatment.  You want to make sure it observes, a neutral point of view.— cyberpower  Chat Limited Access  17:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks!! I have edited as suggested. Is this more neutral and balanced version acceptable for publication? I have also referred to another company, as suggested. Sam1liverpool (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a drug that shows some promise in treating Alzheimer's Disease, it stands to reason that it has been discussed in someplace other than medical journals. You should find some newspaper or magazine articles and cite them.  Medical journals are more of a primary source; what is needed is secondary sources.  Good Luck.  Oh, BTW, you should avoid words like "unique".  Only the first time those vitamins were combined in that ratio was it unique.  That makes the word "unique" what we call "puffery". Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Your article fails the previous deletion criteria now so I have removed the deletion notice. I'm no expert in this matter but Gtwfan52 does offer great advice.— cyberpower  Chat Limited Access  18:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Once again, thank you for the helpful suggestions. I have now included some references to news/magazine articles commenting on this. Also, I have replaced the word "unique" with "patented" and cited the relevant US patent. (COBALZ also holds related European, Canadian and Australian patents concerning this combination of vitamins, but I suspect reference to the US patent alone will suffice? Sam1liverpool (talk) 18:07, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that will be good.  Rcsprinter  (natter)  18:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

So, is that sufficient? What do I need to do now? Will it be published as it stands? Sam1liverpool (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC) If you go to the AfD (Articles for Deletion) page, you can contest the deletion there. Mdann52 (talk) 12:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have read the reasons discussed for deletion, which I think mainly relate to notability; I have therefore made some edits to address this issue, and included some additional text to explain the rationale behind the development of Betrinac. Is this sufficient now for consideration of publication? Many thanks Sam1liverpool (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think you're misunderstanding something about how Wikipedia works… the article is published, and has been since you first clicked "save page." It's currently up for deletion, which is set to close in 1-2 days. Right now, the deletion discussion is going against keeping the article, so it might not be around much longer — but it is published. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 03:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sam1, i see your commitment to the article. Why don't you ask for it to me moved to your userpage and work it there, outside of the main namespace? Articles about specific medical brands are only notable when the brand made s substantial impact on society. Example: It became the first product to successfully combat an specific disease or became controversial for some reasons, e.g., it contained high levels of some drugs. — Hahc 21  17:07, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, many thanks again for this advice. Could you tell me how I move this to my userpage please (or else can you move this for me?!) Many thanks! Sam1liverpool (talk) 22:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you know of any sources outside the company that makes the product, cite them. If you don't, you probably don't have an article. It sounds like what you are talking about is an experimental or alternative medical treatment. You also need to read WP:MEDICAL. It appears that at the moment, you are across that standard. Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears you misunderstood my previous comment and that is entirely my fault. I should have been clearer.  I meant you need a source outside of the company that manufactures the product, not another company that manufactures it.  I am assuming that the clinical trials referenced were commissioned by the originating company.  My subsequent comment had better advice...lol.  Gtwfan52 (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)