Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ampligen


 * 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 Keep. Wamper

Ampligen

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Ampligen entry contains big mistakes (e.g. Ampligen phase III trial for CFS was completed in 2004, Bioclones' marketing rights are being challenged by Hemispherx Biopharma, Ampligen raw materials are no longer manufactured by Ribotech) and lacks relevant indispensable elements (e.g. the results of the phase II and phase III trials for Ampligen for CFS, relevant Ampligen patents)while containing a lot of irrelevant material (patent to infuse tobacco ). The serious side-effects that are referred to lack correct evidence. The link that is offered is a testimony of one person who cannot even prove that her problems were caused by Ampligen... It's a hopeless task to correct all the mistakes and the set-up of this entry, so someone should start from scratch. Well, as I don't feel called upon to contribute, let me suggest that someone who is called upon to contribute to compare the Wikipedia Ampligen entry with the information in the following fairly dependable research report http://www.boenningandscattergood.com/research/CI/HEB%20%282006.12.1%29.pdf and in the Sec filings of Hemispherx Biopharma http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000946644&owner=include I for one, as Ampligen is an experimental drug, would wait for an EMEA European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) http://www.emea.eu.int/htms/human/epar/eparintro.htm or FDA equivalent. Wamper 15:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Insufficient reasons given for deletion. The desire to remove any perceivedly irrelevant material is not a reason to delete the article but a reason to reach consensus regarding deletion of such material from the article. Omission of perceivedly indispensable information is not a reason to delete the article (and counterproductive), but a reason to add the information if available. If an article is full of errors and contains no sourced information, that would be reason to AfD, Prod or Speedy. However, the nominator only provides four perceived mistakes, which is not a reason to delete an article. The mere suggestion that the article is full of errors is not sufficient. The AfD process is not intended to invite other editors to check an article for mistakes not listed by the nominator and not geared to replace consensus discussion on the talk page. doesn't strike me as the best of sources, if only because it sounds like a commercial and introduces this 40-year-old drug as "new" and "21st century". AvB &divide;  talk  16:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've repaired an error (changed 1997 to 2004, sourced the change). AvB &divide; talk  17:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep as per AvB. Moroever, the article was posted here in the middle of an edit war by a single purpose account. Tikiwont 16:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed. It would be interesting to see the nominator cite some sources, if only because it would help improve the article. AvB &divide; talk  17:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per User:Avb. The article has dozens of sources and the assertation by the nominator that "It's a hopeless task to correct all the mistakes" is simply an underestimation of the ability of WP editors. -- Black Falcon 19:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment as the main contributor, I obviously want it kept, but I probably shouldnt vote in the interests of fairness. However, if anyone feels like giving the article a proof read, and having a go at understanding the drug and correcting the 'mechanism of action' bit, it would be really useful. Thedreamdied 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading the Ampligen entry, I want to say that to me it is not credible that Thedreamdied on the one hand knows all the things he knows, and doesn't know all the things he has wrong on Ampligen in his article. It's clear to me that Thedreamdied's aim was not to write an informative, well-balanced, well-documented article on Ampligen, but to discredit Ampligen by stating e.g. that it has serious side-effects, a false and defamatory statement, or by stating that "As of 2007, a new trial is recruiting" while, in order to suggest that the completed phase III will not be sufficient for the FDA, Thedreamdied "forgets" to add that this concerns an open label protocol study, carried out to obtain additional safety data (Phase 3 studies), that are typically used when the controlled trial has ended and treatment is continued so that the subjects and the controls may continue to receive the benefits of the investigational drug until marketing approval is obtained. http://www.fda.gov/oc/ohrt/irbs/drugsbiologics.html. Donklo 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * User Donklo, please do not discuss the editor but limit yourself to the edits. You may want to familiarize yourself with our rules. I'll post some pointers on your talk page in a minute. AvB &divide; talk  23:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep &mdash; bad faith nomination; note the series of sockpuppets ➥the Epopt 00:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.