Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celliant


 * 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 11:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Celliant

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This brand-name polymer (nor the company which created it) does not seem to meet the general notability guidelines, and I struggled to find reliable independent sources which provide significant coverage of it.

Of the references currently on the page, the only one which establishes notability is this NYTimes Technology article circa 2003, but this alone does not support that the subject is generally notable.

As it stands now the page serves only to advertise the product, and to document its alleged health benefits. A (referenced in ) introduced many more citations, but the majority of these sources seemed to have originated from the subject's website, and served only to promote the product, rather than establish notability. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 04:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The one published, company-funded, clinical trial (PMID 19386127) that was cited in the article was deleted because it was not compliant with WP:MEDRS. Furthermore, it did not include any measure of oxygenation. If improved oxygenation is the proposed mechanism, there was no supporting evidence, only speculation. The company website describes other clinical trials, but those have not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals. David notMD (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, I read the process/guidelines for deletion (thank you for that page) and I would like to discuss the process/consideration for deletion of the Celliant wiki listing. The point of the listing was never to advertise or promote Celliant. I am the founder/ceo of the company and I was attempting to correct outdated and factually incorrect information that was on the wiki page. I sincerely apologize for not knowing the policy for how to correct and amend information on wiki. My intent was never to promote or create a spin/slant angle. We have developed and established IR technology for use in textiles that carry a specific claim set that is often misstated and/or criticized. We are looking to accurately and factually describe the technology, how it is made and tested, the health benefits/claims and properly cite our clinical studies- there are 8 published, peer-reviewed studies on Celliant. The end-point for one study is tissue oxygenation. Is it possible the issue was the links for the studies were incorrectly pointing back to our site? We can update with links to the journal/study/the clical.gov database? Or what is the correct protocol?We disagree with "alleged" health benefits as besides the 8 published studies, Hologenix and Celliant products are a registered Class I medical device in several regions/countries including the EU, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. We have engaged the FDA for 10+ years and we have a letter from them that states we are not regulated in the USA but that we are a medical device and general wellness product.Regarding notability, that is the old page referenced which was not updated. Forbes, WSJ, Huffington Post, Wired, Fast Company, Inc., have covered Celliant. We don't need or want to list/link to those stories if that is against policy. We have issued trademarks in over 1 dozen countries if that is a factor for consideration of notability (I read the guidelines but not clear what/how everything is scaled/graded). Please help us bring the page into proper guidelines and standards. Thank you. I should disclose I am a long-time supporter and donor to wiki and we want to post a correct, conforming page and we appreciate everyone's efforts to help us do so.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borristhedog (talk • contribs) 04:46, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: If Forbes, WSJ, etc. have published content (not just brief mention) that is exactly the type of reliable source citations the article needs. Having trademarks: No benefit. Donations to Wikipedia Foundation are welcome, but Wikipedia itself is a separate entity operated by volunteer editors and volunteer Administrators. For any research published in journals, reference the journal directly, not the company website (not clinicaltrial.gov, either). Again, Wikipedia's concept of notability has little interest in what a company has published about itself (websites, press releases, interviews with senior management, company-sponsored clinical trials). David notMD (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The attempt to edit the article was by BayekOsiris, but above you state that were editing the article and you are now using User name Borristhedog. Editing with more than one name is a cardinal sin called "sockpuppetry." It can get all accounts indefinitely blocked. Use only one account going forward. And see your Talk page for more advice. David notMD (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, no matter how much this company wants it to be. No evidence of passing WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment. I feel a bit out of my depth here with my spam-fighting hat. The article currently looks promotional, but Google Scholar does show some research mentioning this... substance. Maybe redirect this to the article about the company that holds the patent for this, where it can be covered in the section for their products, assuming the company itself passes WP:NORG? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:21, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Appears to be a small, one-product company, although there is some internet search confusion between this Hologenix and Hologenix (https://www.hologenix.com/) both in California. David notMD (talk) 15:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the collective help and info. I should be also clear, I am not "BayekOsiris". When I say, "I was attempting to correct", by that I mean I engaged "BayekOsiris" to perform the update/corrections as he is our copy editor. We are not trying to use wiki as an advertising platform. We are trying to use an encyclopedia to provide accurate and correct information. Are peer-reviewed, published 3rd party journal papers not allowed as citations? What about the medical database for the EU, Japan, Australia, New Zealand? Based on the input above, we are happy to submit an updated entry for review. What is "small"? We are an ingredient brand that partners with Levi, Under Armour, Amazon, etc. "one-product" is misleading. Spandex is "one product". We integrate Celliant into a variety of fibers, yarns and, ultimately, fabrics and products. Appreciate the collaborative dialogue.Borristhedog (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: The "one product" was not intended to be disparaging. An editor had suggested this become an article about the company. My point was that as Celliant has far more written about - some of it possibly qualifying as reliable source citations supporting notability - then an article about the product is a better choice. Both you and BayekOsiris must declare your paid status (seeWP:PAID) on your User pages before doing any editing to the draft. David notMD (talk) 20:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: Thank you again for the further clarification. We will note paid status and prepare another draft for review. In searching wiki, it may make sense to create a "infrared textiles" listing. If I wanted to explore that further, how would I best engage? Borristhedog (talk) 21:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you're new to Wikipedia, there are some very important things about it that you might not realize. So, you probably want to take a close look at Wikipedia:Ownership of content and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Many people seem to think that a Wikipedia article is only a good thing, but there can also be quite a downside that isn't so obvious at first. Your intention might not to be to promote Celliant in any way, but you might not realize that you will have pretty much no editorial control over the article's content if the consensus is to keep this article. Article content (positive or negative) will be assessed based solely upon whether it's in accordance with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not how it affects your company. So, if you're looking for a Wikipedia-type of set up where you can possibly have such editorial control, then you might want to check out WP:ALTERNATIVE since there are other websites which may be better suited for such a thing. I'm not trying to discourage you from arguing trying to have this article kept, but you might want to consider whether it's something you really want as a company. Wikipedia didn't need your permission for an article about Celliant to be created and it will be kept regardless of whether doing so is in the best interests of your company as long as the WP:CONSENSUS is that Celliant meets WP:NPRODUCT or WP:GNG. If the article does end up being kept, it will be an article written about Celliant (not for Celliant), and it will be "owned" by the Wikipedia community as a whole so to speak, and  the community's interests are highly unlikely to be the same as your company's interests. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: One option an Administrator may take at the end of this AfD process is to draftify the article rather than delete it. That would allow the draft to be edited, then submitted to AfC. One example of what Marchjuly wrote about, is that if the article survives this AfD, then the 2019 news item "Multiple Energy Technologies Sues Hologenix for False and Misleading Claims Regarding Celliant" could be added. David notMD (talk) 02:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment This discussion and education has been extremely helpful and I continue to want to express my gratitude for the community's collective efforts. Thank you! Noted Marchjuly and David notMd's comments. Again, the intention is to have a completely objective listing that contains all factual information- good, bad, ugly. The mission of wiki is to not slant or shape the information that it shares/provides. I recognize the missteps/mistakes that were made as we attempted to correct factually inaccurate information on the page for Celliant and I understand the justifiably cold reaction it received. We were never under the impression that we would own or control the narrative. We just want fair and correct info. If an Administrator is able to draftify the article, great. I would like the Administrator and the community to consider creating an article on "responsive textiles" or "Infrared (IR) textiles" or the "bioceramic" article be edited/expanded to include applications in textiles. Maybe Celliant is listed in that article with no hyperlink? The goal/vision is to create/expand the education and awareness of "responsive textiles" and the field/applications. Our body is an energy source emitting between 80-100 watts at any given moment/second and we have developed a way to harness and utilize that energy to create a health benefit through embedding and printing thermo-reactive minerals into/onto textiles. This belongs on wiki in some form or fashion. And if that includes listing all of the skeptics and doubters, so be it. Global warming is still debated by some, we have the "flat earth society" and some people say we haven't been to the moon. All we can do is seek to provide the information we have gathered and let people make their own decisions. My biggest concern is who is the ultimate arbitrator of the "facts"? As an example, how is it determined that "alleged health benefits" becomes "health benefits". Celliant has health benefits but clearly there are still people that don't believe it. As long as we have an objective review, we can be at peace with the outcome. Looking forward to further input. Borristhedog (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete for failing WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV and WP:NPRODUCT. The NYT citation is about a company then called Hologenix with its Holofiber which I take is the predecessor of the material here. The other two mention an activewear company that once used the fiber and the other is a list of retailers. If the sources are this stale and scarce then neither the company nor the product pass the WP:GNG bar. Blue Riband► 03:00, 6 March 2021 (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.