Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Femarelle


 * 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 keep. Procedural closure as No valid reason provided. Feel free to renominate the article for deletion with a valid reason. (non-admin closure) JAaron95  Talk   10:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Femarelle

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I would like to request from the Wikipedia community to remove the Femarelle entry for the following reasons: 1.The current entry does not include all the up to date scientific data, which should be part of a media that supposedly brings all the knowledge to the front. 2.Every attempt of updating reliable and up to date data, published in the leading international medical journals was removed or deleted by one specific person that has a very strong agenda against the product for some reason. 3.This same person has deleted the previous entries that were there historically and did provide information on the studies. 4.The current references do not support what is written. 5.There is a general feeling that the product is being targeted because of conflict of interest. 6.It was never our intention or attempt to advertise our product through Wikipedia. It was merely our intention to provide scientific evidence and facts which for some reason we cannot do. 7.Regarding EFSA which for some reason has become an issue for the user "Jytdog": Please note that this is what EFSA has written to us on this matter: EFSA, as the European Union risk assessor, is responsible for providing scientific advice to European Union risk managers (i.e. the European Commission, the Member States and the European Parliament). Please note that EFSA is not involved in any regulatory process which is initiated on the basis of an EFSA opinion. Decisions regarding the authorization of health claims, including the final wording and the authorized conditions of use/restrictions of use, are ultimately taken by risk managers (i.e. the Commission and Member States), and not EFSA. Since the application was withdrawn- the fact that an application was initiated may the reason be whatever they were, does not mean that the “EFSA rejected the application” it just gave an opinion, which has no regulatory standing. You are more than welcome to ask the EFSA Nutrition Unit if this is not the case. 8.Based on all the above, we request that either we are allowed to insert all the up to date scientific data without it being deleted. The data is straightforward information that was published in medical journals, or that this entry be removed altogether as this entry is maliciously targeted by a very motivated person with a not so pure agenda, may his seniority be what it may. Thank you. Corin at Secure (talk) 05:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Corin, oh Corin. I and others have been trying to tell you how Wikipedia works - how we source content per WP:MEDRS and we cannot use the primary sources you want to use to talk about how great Femarelle is.  Wikipedia doesn't work that way.  About your point about the EFSA - that is OK and I just updated the article to simply quote the EFSA findings.  Overall, I am sorry you are disappointed, but you have not taken enough time to understand this place.  This is what can happen sometimes when an editor has a COI - getting their content into WP is more important than understanding what kind of content is OK here.  I am sorry that you don't want to learn.  In any case, more relevant to what you are doing here, discussions about deleting articles, are based on the criteria described in WP:NOTABILITY which is policy.  None of your reasons speak to those criteria.  There are three MEDRS-compliant secondary sources that discuss Femarelle, and that is probably enough to meet the notability criteria. But  I will not !vote here.  We can both see what the community has to say.  Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - procedural close. Nominator does not make any valid reason for deletion. I don't believe this topic fails notability.  —Мандичка YO 😜 07:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above. Content dispute is not a valid reason to pursue AfD. -KH-1 (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above. It is a shame that Corin has failed to understand that we rely on Reliable Sources to build content for wikipedia, in this case WP:MEDRS applies. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 10:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak keep, per above. Notability remains questionable, but article is much-improved from its earlier, more promotional versions. Reasons given by nominator do not support deletion, and item #8 seems to dictate terms for non-deletion, contrary to Ownership of content. Wikipedia is not a press-release service, and is under no obligation to keep an article in a state dictated by an outside entity. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - Procedural Close per Wikimandia above. PianoDan (talk) 13:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per KH-1. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2015 (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.