Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IMOD


 * 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. Consensus is that this is a notable medicine, even though (or even because) it is likely an Iranian government hoax. Sandstein 21:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

IMOD

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is an obvious example of disinformation regarding a non-existent product that was itself created for the purposes of disinformation. The references to the "AIDS cure" are part of Iranian-controlled media, with the exception of the BBC Persia link which I can't read--I couldn't find any reference to the term on the English BBC site. The talk page alone provides enough evidence per the discussion of the page's creators to warrant deletion. It was listed under the list of antiviral drugs, which was incorrect since there is no evidence it does anything but misinform. The "manufacturer's" website talks about how successful the "cure" is and how happy AIDS patients are to be cured, but the discussion forums are empty. The news coverage is limited at best, manufactured at worst and the topic is therefore not notable. It's announcement might be notable were it something that affected foreign relations or the scientific or HIV-positive communities, but the simple fact it was announced doesn't make it worthy of Wikipedia. If that were the case, there would be a lot of bizarre and misleading articles from many questionable governments. Please delete. TeamZissou 06:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The 'drug' itself is obviously nonsense - one of a long string of ridiculous announcements from the Iranian regime, but it might make an article if it concentrated on the propaganda hoax, rather than the probably non existent medicine. Nick mallory 11:44, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I translated the BBC Persian article and threw it on the talk page. BBC article even notes that disinformation has come from the Iranian health minister before... I think it's notable, but my brain kinda burns out from translating, and I'm not very good at it, so I don't know anything; you guys decide :) Deltopia 17:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply to Comment That's what makes Wikipedia so cool--smart, wonderful people who will translate Persian for a fact check--thank you, Deltopia! I hope your brain cools down. :) TeamZissou 18:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, TZ :) My brain has been immersed in rum for hours, which has fixed it right up.  I am calling Keep - The story of IMOD is notable, based on press coverage, I think.  If we think it's disinformation (which we do, because we have a grain of common sense), we need to source that somehow.  If it is sourceably a hoax, it's probably notable just because of that - the article would have to be changed, but it's still kind of a big thing.  In Iranian news, this is probably huge, and the fact that our systemic perspective gives us a different vision of it doesn't mean it's insignificant.  (Plus which, let's imagine how much fun it will be to revisit this page in six months if they announce, woops, nevermind, it's not REALLY an AIDS cure.) Deltopia 18:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. BBC Persia news coverage (kindly translated by Deltopia) seems sufficient independent sourcing. Even if the therapy is 100% bogus (and immune modulation is a mainstream part of HIV/AIDS therapy), if it's being pushed by a government that seems strong reason to include a balanced coverage here. Espresso Addict 10:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions.   —Espresso Addict 10:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Comment. Espresso Addict, did you read the comment left on the talk page by the original authors? "this is an unbelievable step, and I am almost positive that in America, it will not be affordable for those who have HIV. It will be a high priced, over the counter, prescription drug, and will remain this way until our conflict in the midle east is resolved."  BBC Persia has one small article on their website concerning this, likely because of the coverage of it in Iranian state media.  If we were to validate the encyclopedic value of an article based on whether or not that article appeared in a footnote  news story, imagine all the junk that would be on Wikipedia on top of all the junk we already have.  If anything, this article should be folded into the Disinformation article, or perhaps placed in a new article like Propaganda in Iran (surprisingly, this doesn't exist).  One short mention from one reputable news organization just isn't enough for something specifically designed as a PR tool.  Will we be the ones to give it more importance than it has, thus achieving the goal of further misinforming the Iranian people? TeamZissou 18:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did read the talk page. No-one here is competent to judge whether or not the drug does what the Iranian goverment says it does, all we can judge is whether there is significant reliable independent coverage of its existence. The BBC Persia coverage seems important here, and it's also mentioned in HIV-specific forums eg and news sites eg . Espresso Addict 10:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure anyone capable of reading this discussion possesses ample competence to answer whether-or-not an:
 * "herbal drug"...
 * "made with nanotechnology"...
 * created by the intellectual and innovation powerhouse that is the remanents of Iran's scientific community...
 * a community that is necessarily subservient to an authoritarian theocracy...
 * a government that can't even get its en.wikipedia.org propaganda officers to disinform in coherent English...
 * has produced a "proven" treatment for HIV/AIDS. The first external link you provide is from a Q&A forum--one question (sum:Iran says it has an aids cure. huh?) and one answer (sum:I've heard of it. Be skeptical.). The second link is an article based on an article based on an article from Iranian media--the story, by the way, offers a different description of IMOD's development from including "one Russian scientist" to no Russians and replacing them with "Cuban scientists".  I'm sure the legit Cuban medical community is more than annoyed with that. The third link is to the shortest FOX News article I've seen, and it sources the same bunk Iranian news agency on which every other piece of information on IMOD is based. If a mention of IMOD belongs anywhere in Wikipedia, it should be placed in an expanded Fars News Agency article as a notable example of what that news agency does.  Are we seriously having this debate?  TeamZissou 10:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * On a side note, notice that "Fars News" bears a striking cognitive (and functional) resemblance to "Fox News"? ,:o


 * Keep multiple independent sources establishes that subject passes WP:NOTE. Content of article is now NPOV, pointing out that there is no independent research to support the claims of the Iranian Health Ministry. Items of disinformation, or even outright hoaxes (see Category:Hoaxes in science, are valid topics for encyclopaedia articles. Gandalf61 10:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I was looking over the links provided by Espresso Addict and adding to my reply as you were writing yours. I inserted the additional text above following the edit conflict. TeamZissou 10:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NOTE:
 * "Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive."
 * "Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works."
 * ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline." -- which suggests the article should not be about the "drug," rather it should concern the act of the announcement if anything. The announcement and no data, no examples, no outside opinion is all the articles provide.  All articles essentially say "Iran said this" and "Fars News said that."  If the article focuses on the "drug" (background, effects, outcome) instead of the announcement of the "drug", then IMOD fails the "mere replications of a single source" and the "reliability" restriction.  If there are a handful of small footnote articles simply repeating what the Fars News announcements claimed, if fails to achieve "more than tivial" coverage.  Again, at some point the Fars News Agency article will become larger and more informative, and the IMOD announcement could then be included under a section called "Extraordinary claims" or something of the like.

Additionally, hoaxes are meant as jokes, or for personal fame, etc. IMOD is not a hoax--it's piece of propaganda that's part of a larger propaganda effort to keep people controlled and the government of Iran in power. This isn't a "hoax in science"--it's political tool. How can this not be obvious to anyone who reads the information on it--especially from the sources' only source: Fars. TeamZissou 10:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment TeamZissou, you don't do yourself any favours by making belittling remarks like "How can this not be obvious" and "Are we seriously having this debate?". Yes, the claims made for IMOD are, almost certainly, a political tool, propoganda and exaggerated disinformation. By itself, this does not rule out a balanced NPOV Wikipedia article on IMOD. The point at issue is whether IMOD is sufficiently notable to merit a Wikipedai article. I believe it is; you believe it is not. Please do me the courtesy of assuming that I have put just as much thought into this issue as you have, even though my conclusion differs from yours. Gandalf61 12:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Very well, but according to the requirements of the WP:NOTE the topic still fails to meet notability standards. TeamZissou 20:26, 8 October 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.