Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immunocal


 * 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; its existence may be verified, but there is no verification from third-party sources that this is a notable product. --Sam Blanning(talk) 22:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Immunocal


Advertisment for a product Rich257 20:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cbrown1023 21:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No sources provided, so no credibility. Green451 04:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Advert - parts come almost verbatim from thier publicity/publications.SkierRMH 07:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not delete per nom. Green451: Numerous sources are provided including US Patent office and National Library of medicine/pub med. What else do you require? Apparent Logic 05:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that there are sources and that we can believe the product exists and it seems that there are sources to back the claims, although some the references could perhaps be better embedded within the article. However it's still advertising for a specific branded (probably trademarked) product isn't it?  The article is not about a class of supplements, for example. Rich257 10:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Okay, where do I begin?  First of all, although patent documents prove that the said product (which I have never heard of) DOES exist, that does not mean it is notable to a wide audience.  I would consider most medical journals to be unreliable sources, as some have come under fire for being paid by a manufacturer to write a positive article.  Give us a citation from the New England Medical Journal or from a source that the general public knows is legimate, such as The New York Times (or such).  A lot of the statements in the article are attributed to "According to Immunotec...".  This is a primary source, and thus a no-no.  Use inline citations for statements, providing a reliable secondary source.  While I believe this product does exist, it's nothing personal, but I believe Wikipedia must maintain a strigent article acceptance policy, because otherwise it would soon become a walking billboard.  If the article is kept, it needs major cleanup to make it look less like a spam article (all of the external links in the article text need to be converted to inline cites) and more understandable to people outside the medical community. Green451 16:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Green451: You suggested either the "New England Journal of Medicine" or the "New York Times" as credible sources. That's like saying I want the high standard of a either a Ferrari or a VW bug. Highly divergent. The NEJM typically requires the highest standards for inclusion of clinical trials (unlikely that a nutritional supplement trial will meet this criteria unless it is subsidized by the NIH).  The New York Times is least credible source in scientific terms. Heresay and author opinion. Most journalists are not scientists.  Your statement that "most medical journals [are] unreliable sources, as some have come under fire for being paid by a manufacturer to write a positive article" is something that is not accepted in the scientific community.  Most are "peer review" journals and almost all today require authors of articles to state "conflicts of interest" which would certainly include being paid for writing a positive article. I am a scientist and if I participated in that, I would lose all professional credibility.  It happens, but it is the rare exception and not the rule. Lets re-write as necessary, but not exclude minor journals as references because they could be "tainted".Apparent Logic 05:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Okay, I will assume a leap of faith and believe that the nine journals you cited are legitimate.  Which brings me to another point: What makes this drug as notable as, say Penicillin or Ibuprofen?  Why would people want to know about this product?  I just thought of those examples off the top of my head, but they are notable drugs.  I do not have a scientific mind, and, although everything on the medical journals may make sense to you, it's all gibberish to me.  My question above stands. Green451 16:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not delete per nom. This article is NOT duplicated in manufacturer's literature and provides beneficial information to patients with CFIDS. I suffer from cfids and the information here is helpful. I found info here I have not seen elsewhere. Cfidsguy 13:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Does the article fail WP:OR in that case? Rich257 15:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: WP:OR Articles may not contain any unpublished arguments, ideas, data, or theories; or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published arguments, ideas, data, or theories that serves to advance a position. Rich257: I don't believe this meets that criteria as the arguments are published. Apparent Logic 05:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to note that earlier in this thread Cfidsguy said "I found info here [that] I have not seen elsewhere", which seems a claim of original research? It certainly implies that that material is unverifiable. Rich257 08:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Rich257: Not necessarily. Only that the reader hadn't seen it before. SkierRMH stated: "parts come almost verbatim from thier publicity/publications" but I also reviewed the supplied manufacturer's link and didn't find verbatim lifts. I reviewed the WIKI article and most statements are documented by external links to credible sources.  If the contention concerns "the manufacturer states", perhaps an editor could do a little research to find references beyond the manufacturer (i.e. compensated by Medicare/medicaid, etc).  I believe this may need a re-write, but dont think the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater... Apparent Logic 14:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Rich257: You are correct. The class of supplements is "undenatured bioactive whey protein supplements".  There are only 2 or 3 that I am aware of, however the Immunocal is the original supplement in the class, and most folks search for it by brand name. I checked the Yahoo network and found no searches for "undenatured bioactive whey protein supplements" but numerous for the branded product "immunocal".  Users of Wikipedia would therefor be more likely to search for the branded product. (This is similar to the brand "kleenex" which is more likely to be searched for than "facial tissue", and is included in Wikipedia as the branded reference for that reason. Apparent Logic 14:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Unless information can be references and importance is demonstrated through independent, non trivial citation. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Do not delete Magnusverdixon: Viable sources are provided including the United States Patent Office and National Library of Medicine/pub med. A search will yield thousands of monthly searches for this product.
 * The issue is not whether the product exists or not, the links show that it does. The issue is that it is an advert for a product from a specific manufacturer. Rich257 11:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: The precident is that products from a specific manufacturers are included in wikipedia: An abbreviated list includes these major products.  There are hundreds of minor products.  [ windows XP], [ Kool Aid], [Kleenex], [Fruit of the Loom], [Band Aid], [Coca-Cola].  If "most well known" is the criteria, then how well known? According to searches on the Yahoo.com network, immunocal has about 25% of the searches of the established brand "Band Aid". [[User:Apparent Logic|Apparent Logic]] 13:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep While I don't know if this article is a copy from company literature, the substance seems to be real and written up by independent reliable sources (cached for your convenience)   --Oakshade 17:58, 12 November 2006 (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.