Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Molecular hydrogen therapy


 * 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. No policy-based reasons for keeping the article have been provided. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Molecular hydrogen therapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fringe nonsense by a WP:SPA, replete with WP:SYN. No reality-based sources seem to support this conjecture (not hypothesis). Guy (Help!) 11:29, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * delete A bit hard to search but an article sourced entirely from research papers from a small group of researchers is not appropriate. Mangoe (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure if anyone noticed the talk page I created with multiple other sources lacking in topics of the article, and high IF replicated studies on topics not discussed. This page could use many many edits but I have a COI and cannot/should not. Happy to provide sources. As for no 'reality based sources' I am unsure what that means, and will add their are published studies in Nature Medicine, Science and Circulation among many other reputable journals. As for reputable teams from large institutions:
 * The Lucas Group at the Max Planck Institute is pursuing molecular hydrogen as a radical scavenger in diseases as one of their key topics
 * http://www.mpic.de/en/research/multiphase-chemistry/lucas-group.html
 * Dr Banks from the University of Washington http://depts.washington.edu/geront/banks.html sits as a Senior advisor of the non-profit molecular hydrogen foundation in the US ::http://www.molecularhydrogenfoundation.org/board/william-allen-banks/ and has published this article on traumatic brain injury in PLoS One
 * https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4176020/
 * Dr Garth Nicolson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garth_L._Nicolson published the review article that was deleted from this topic regarding cancer patients and radiotherapy. Not sure why the statement was linked to his review, when the original source, this 49 patient randomized controlled study, would have been a better reference https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22146004
 * Dr Jan Slezak who also sits as a senior advisor at the MHF http://www.molecularhydrogenfoundation.org/board/dr-slezak/

"For 10 years, he served as Director of the Institute for Heart Research, Slovak Academy of Sciences and later 11 years as the first Vice-President of the Slovak Academy of Sciences." ::http://www.heartacademy.org/phpwcms/index.php?jan-slezak-honoured-by-bratislava-slovakia
 * He speaks about the potential of molecular hydrogen therapy in this review article, http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/cjpp-2015-0006#.WIY-2RsrK01 published in the Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, while you will need to buy the full article unless subscriptions are present, you can easily find a handful of his references are regarding molecular hydrogen therapy articles.TarnavaA (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC) — TarnavaA (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Not notable per WP:GNG and unencyclopaedic per WP:FRINGE. As a side note, creating new accounts just to post walls of text isn't going to achieve anything positive. Exemplo347 (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Not sure why posting references to add more information won't achieve anything positive. As for not notable/fringe, looked up the definitions on wiki so here are secondary sources from legitimate news sources talking about it. https://pulmonaryhypertensionnews.com/2014/09/26/molecular-hydrogen-water-protects-pulmonary-hypertension/ https://www.gasworld.com/h2-inhalation-research-shows-promise-in-japanese-hospitals/2010537.articlehttps://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-09-anti-aging-properties-hydrogen-rich-periodontal-tissues.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/asiatoday/hydrogen-water-could-help_b_11770700.html
 * I understand that it has it's own page which may be the issue. Many other therapeutic references to molecules with 1/100th the study or less(often a single rodent study) are posted as sub sections of the main article. TarnavaA (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2017 (UTC)  — TarnavaA (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Can you please keep your remarks short? You mention above that you have a Conflict of Interest here. Can you explain, very specifically, what your conflict of interest is? Exemplo347 (talk) 23:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * COI: I have international patents filed for a tablet that creates super saturated levels of H2 in water in minutes, as well as other int patents filed for various devices relating to hydrogen rich water and manufacturing techniques to do it. TarnavaA (talk) 02:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Your conflict of interest basically means that you're not commenting with a neutral point of view. You have a direct financial interest in the continued existence of this article, meaning your comments will be given less weight than someone who is independent of the subject. I'd also like to point out that none of the references you have provided represent the Substantial Coverage in Reliable, Independent Sources that Wikipedia requires. You need to read WP:COI and WP:GNG. Wikipedia does not exist to provide free advertising space. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

RESPONSE: I am not sure what you are implying. This is neither my article, nor am I convinced it was properly posted. I am simply adding a body of evidence that was lacking, and no one else had bothered looking into or verifying. The very first thing I wrote was that I have a COI. I also commented that this may be better suited in a more condensed version as a subsection of the H2 page, as is the case with many other molecules that have 1/100th of the research and published articles. I can give many examples. TarnavaA (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not implying - I'm directly stating that your conflict of interest means that you are not able to give a neutral point of view. These discussions are based purely on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, nothing more. "Molecular hydrogen therapy," as a concept, does not meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guideline. The links you have provided either completely fail to use the phrase "Molecular hydrogen therapy" or mention it purely in passing - that's not enough. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You stated 'advertising.' Again, I will say that this subject is more suitable as a sub section of the H2 page. Ample studies exist for the topic to be touched on briefly. Many molecules have a single study, in rodents, in a low impact factor journal, which is mentioned on the wikipedia page in a sub section. I started the talk page to offer higher quality studies for a NEUTRAL party to edit before it was nominated for deletion. TarnavaA (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that if the time comes when "Molecular hydrogen therapy" becomes notable, someone totally unconnected with it will create an article. At this present moment, the guidelines aren't met. There's not even enough independent sourcing to justify adding this concept to the article about Hydrogen at the moment. You'll have to be patient - currently it's nothing more than a fringe concept. Exemplo347 (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, I didn't create this article and do not know who did. I came to address errors in the articles design and offer sources to higher IF replicated articles. I agree that this page does not meet the thresholds. If there is any consistency in Wikipedia it absolutely meets the threshold to be a sub section in the H2 page. TarnavaA (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Nobody has said that you created this article so let's just put an end to that. As for the Hydrogen article - it's a Featured Article, and as such the threshold for inclusion is strictly enforced. There's no way a Fringe theory could be added to that article without it being immediately reverted. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I do not fully understand the threshold then, or how a featured article differs from a normal article and to what extent research needs to be done. With over 600 published articles, 40~ clinical trials, several large scale clinical trials under way and published articles in journals such as Nature Medicine, Science and Circulation... the evidence threshold is 100x higher than the evidence presented in these pages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotinamide_riboside https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrroloquinoline_quinone that isn't even mentioning the paid studies included above, and the fact that the NR page is a half advertisement for chromadex. TarnavaA (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The articles you have just linked to have a huge variety of coverage, meaning that they meet the General Notability Guidelines that I have already taken care to point out to you. You really should take the time to actually read the guidelines. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I did. it says significant secondary source coverage. I did not see a definitive measure of what constitutes significant. The majority of the news surrounding NR is regarding Chromadex announcing it's own studies, so self propogated publicity, or mostly negative publicity regarding the brand Elysium. TarnavaA (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * "Significant" is the key word there - not passing mentions - and the argument that other articles are weak has no effect here - this discussion is about this article specifically. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * when a definition in terms of acceptance is subjective, the question of why the weaker sourcing has been accepted for article A but stronger evidence proposed under the same subsection parameters for article B is flat out rejected is a legitimate one to ask and can lead to a better udnerstanding of said subjective terms, which you were quick to point to. I presume consistency is deemed important. TarnavaA (talk) 23:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, this discussion is about this article, in isolation, and not about any other article. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is pertinent here. I don't want to keep repeating the same answers to you over and over again, so feel free to read them again at your leisure if you're going to keep asking the same questions. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

After reading that I would argue WP:Bias, as found in the huffington post article I linked in Japan over 10% of the bottled water industry is now hydrogen rich water, and the inhalation devices are being widely used in hospitals. Hydrogen rich water has it's own Japanese wiki page, not even considering h2 inhalation and saline TarnavaA (talk) 00:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That article doesn't give any significant coverage to "Molecular hydrogen therapy" as a concept. That's the problem here, which I've already pointed out to you very clearly. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 100s of secondary source news articles can be posted in Japanese and Korean if I'm understanding the WP:Bias properly. TarnavaA (talk) 00:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Do any of them give significant coverage to "Molecular hydrogen therapy" - specifically this - and not just the surrounding theories that may or may not be connected? Come on, this is quite simple and it shouldn't need me to repeat it so many times. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I google translated to Japanese and search google news then reverse translated to English, these two come up this month about Japan's recognition of H2 inhalation devices as advanced medical equipment. I emailed a colleague in Japan to send over relevant secondary source news articles. http://mainichi.jp/articles/20170124/ddm/013/040/006000c http://news.cnw.com.cn/news-china/htm2017/20170105_337574.shtml TarnavaA (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Look, if you want an article about Hydrogen-rich water to exist, you should head over to Requested articles and request an article about that concept. THIS article is specifically about "Molecular hydrogen therapy" as a concept. The two things may be connected but they are NOT interchangeable terms. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Is part of the deletion process not suggesting different topic names and modifications? That is right at the top of the wikipedia deletion page. TarnavaA (talk) 00:55, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Again, I am proposing the name be changed. I would suggest 'Biological effects of Molecular Hydrogen' as a neutral name. As for hydrogen rich water vs inhalation vs saline, many drugs and other products have many different delivery methods, oral, injection etc and DO NOT have different wiki entries for different delivery methods, and different delivery methods are known to have different side effects and efficacy targeting certain pathologies. By your remarks, both hydrogen rich water and hydrogen inhalation possess the required threshold of reliable, replicated research sources and significant secondary source attention to justify an article. It would be silly to have them as separate articles. Here are more news articles, a great benefit of Wikipedia is to give reliable, neutral sources of information rather than the awful information present in some of these news articles:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-3987238/Forget-juice-cleanse-new-celebrity-health-craze-HFactor-hydrogen-rich-water-Blake-Lively-Ryan-Reynolds-sipping-benefits.html

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/11597042

http://www.allure.com/story/hfactor-hydrogen-water-review

I can continue posting more articles and reiterating that the name can and should be changed, and much of the information present can and should be edited and cleaned up.

TarnavaA (talk) 05:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note At no point have I said that this unproven fringe theory deserves its own article, so I don't know how you could have got that impression & I'm astounded at the mischaracterisation of my remarks. It definitely does not deserve one - Wikipedia does not give undue weight to conjecture-based ideas that have not been proven to be anything more than placebo effect-driven fads. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you read any of the high impact factor articles? Replicated studies consisting of human trials, in high impact factor journals? I posted several on the talk page. Do you have any expertise or background knowledge of any kind to form your statement? I got that idea from your statements. 100's of articles from Many research teams, numerous clinical trials and replicated studies in high IF journals meets a threshold for discussion and is well beyond countless articles on wiki. Secondary sources became the issue, to which many were linked and I could link 100 more. The exact phrasing 'molecular hydrogen therapy' became your next point as articles spoke specifically to H2 inhalation or hydrogen rich water. I addressed that and added that a name change is warranted. Now it's gone round about and you're dismissing the science baselessly, at this point I'm going to add presumably without bothering to read any of it or possessing the ability to interpret it even if you had. TarnavaA (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Exemplo347 (talk) 09:01, 28 January 2017 (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.