Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Platinum Chewing Gum


 * 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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Platinum Chewing Gum

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a hoax, but it's a curious one, and wider than just Wikipedia. The article gives five references and two external links, but none of them mentions chewing-gum. Google-searching for "Nanogum" and "Platinum chewing gum" turns up quite a few hits, but when you look into them for a reliable source you get nowhere - they are all blog or gossip-type sites. On the article talk page reference is made to the "official company website", but there is no link to it and I cannot find one, either for "Platinum Chewing Gum" or "Nanogum", the two companies supposed to be involved.

The sort of things Google finds are zimbio.com, an article posted two days ago, with the same picture as ours, ezinearticles.com (spam-filter blacklists this link), and about.com - this last one posted by a user called "BBCNews", who has made only that one post, on 21 August, but has a Myspace page with a picture of the chewing-gum carton. She is said to be female, 28 years old, living in Switzerland, and I doubt has any connection with the BBC. Her myspace blog has one entry, about platinum chewing gum. The supposed marketing slogan "an ageless platinum life" returns no Ghits.

These articles talk in terms of multi-million dollar deals for packaging, a $250-a-box price, and $100 million lost in revenue due to smuggling the gum. If there were really a business on that scale, there would be company websites and other reliable sources to be found. Also, the recipe is said to be patented; if that were true, the patent could be cited.

The history is interesting: this article was input by, who has only that one single edit. A tag was added, and a plea that it should be kept added to the talk page, by, who also has no other edits. However an entry "Platinum chewing gum" was added to the article List of chewing gum brands as long ago as 22 Sep 08 by (an IP registered to SOVINTEL St Petersburg) and. On the same date an earlier version of this article was deleted CSD#G7 (author has blanked or requests deletion). These two also created the article Platinum nanoparticles which in the state they left it was nominated for deletion last September along with Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals; the latter article was deleted as "advertising masquerading as an encyclopedia article", but Platinum nanoparticles was reprieved as a valid subject subject to a major rewrite (which has happened) to remove unsourced spam/health claims. The closing admin of that AfD commented on unconvincing SPAs and sockpuppetry, and we should maybe expect the same here.

Meanwhile, this one cites no relevant reliable sources and I can find none. It's a hoax. I don't know what the point is, some kind of scam? We shouldn't be part of it. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I just read Platinum and that was enough to persuade me that nothing good can come of this idea. Lets hope it is a hoax, but if it is not, it is spam or non-notable due to lack of RS coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was suspicious of the article for reasons I noted on the talk page.  I was going to wait a day or so to see if the author could come up with anything, meanwhile JohnCD did some marvellous sleuthing and his further evidence convinces me that it's a hoax.  (Funny story: the only reason I stumbled across it in the first place was because it was listed on Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.  It was not tagged for speedy deletion, but the author felt the need to put a hangon on it.  Protip for future hoaxers: don't draw attention to yourself.) ...  disco spinster   talk  00:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. None of the reference sources provided say anything about chewing gum. --DAJF (talk) 02:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as hoax. Article claims to have been sold in the US. Under US law, the ingredients would have to be disclosed. Trade secret my butt. This is a hoax. DarkAudit (talk) 02:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.Nrswanson (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions.  —Fg2 (talk) 10:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Coment - Platinum Gum was speedy-deleted last August as "G11: Blatant advertising: or rather outright nonsense". JohnCD (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as advertisement. But FYI, there really was a plutinum gum from Meiji Seika. And there are plutinum water., , and . Oda Mari (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I, Sushant 86, as the author of this article, hereby, would like to apologize for the following mistakes or confusion that has arose:

1) Misinformation : Active ingredients are a trade secret

Correction:

On the contrary, the list of active ingredients in exact quantities is already mentioned on the product wrapper or box.

The same information is already mentioned in the table of contents within this article for the readers.

Ingredients are disclosed public information and are printed on the box cover.

The same has been provided in small brochure with complete details including the codes (Codex Alimentarius) of every ingredient as required by the laws in the U.S and almost all countries where this product is being sold.

2) Incomplete information: Recipe is patented

Correction: Recipe of the chewing gum is not patented or a trade secret.

But, process for producing the Platinum nanocolloidal solution (that is used in the manufacture of Platinum chewing gum) is patented in the U.S and the patent was awarded in the month of November, 2008.

Hence, I sincerely wish to edit this article and correct my unintentional mistakes. (Sushy77 (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC));
 * Reply to Sushant86/Sushy77: it does not give great confidence in your article if, as soon as it is challenged, you admit that it is inaccurate. You are permitted to edit the article while this debate continues: the earlier versions will still be accessible in the history. The references in the article at present say nothing about chewing gum, or the "Platinum Chewing Gum" Company, or the "Nanogum" company. What the article needs is references from reliable sources to confirm its claims that they exist - please read Reliable sources. Blogs, and sites like eZineArticles.com, are not reliable sources, because anyone can post there. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

These are the brands that target high networth clients and hence the venues of purchase would be obviously only in high end retails or boutiques, gift shops in star hotels or venues where the cash loaded consumers or buyers visit. I can provide you the list of venues where this product can be purchased. But then, we can call it blatant advertising? Isn’t it??(Markdashy (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC));
 * Comment - Places of Purchase:Is it now a criterion in Wikipedia for authors to write the place of purchase also just because someone could not find it on the shelves in a super market, next to his home?
 * Reply to Markdashy: the criterion in Wikipedia is that what it publishes must be verifiable from reliable sources. We have no reliable sources to show that this gum is on sale anywhere, or even that it exists. JohnCD (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I have been having a more detailed look at what comes up from a Google search on "Platinum Chewing Gum". There is clearly a back-door marketing campaign going on. Rather than clutter up this debate I have posted notes on the article talk page. I am more than ever convinced that this article should be deleted. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per everyone above.Nrswanson (talk) 07:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per JohnCD. Convincing info at Talk:Platinum Chewing Gum. Radiant chains (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Do not delete this article 

These are a few credible links available on the Internet that I can provide you for the moment in support of the fact that this product does exist in the Russian Market.

1) Reputed Russian Business newspaper :

Article with regards to Platinum chewing gum had appeared in this newspaper dated: 15 June, 2006. Link to the article

''I wish to draw the attention of all the wikipedians to the fact that there are numerous articles in Wikipedia which are accepted and which give references to the mentioned Russian newspaper – Delovaya gazeta “Vzglyad” (Деловая газета «Взгляд»).

Link to this newspaper in Wikipedia itself is here

''This newspaper has been also recommended by VVPB (a wikipedian) as a wikisource on his page. [The link to his page is here] ''

''And it is given as a reference in the end of various wikiarticles on different topics (cultural events, politics, personalities, songs, films, products, etc). Below are some of them to make it easier for you guys to refer or cross check:''

1.	wiki-article 1  ''(173) ↑ Юлия Малышева ЦИК раскрыл доходы Путина. Взгляд (2007-10-26).''

2.	wiki-article 2 ''^ a b (Russian) Галковский, Дмитрий (June 22, 2005). "Березовский – между Азефом и Парвусом (Berezovsky - between Azef and Parvus)". Деловая газета «Взгляд». Retrieved on 2006-12-17.''

3.	wiki-article 3 ↑ Башни-близнецы взорвали изнутри, Деловая газета «Взгляд» (11.09.2007).

''4.	[http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B8%D0%BD-%D0%B4%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%B4%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%B4%D0%B7%D0%B0! wiki-article 4] ↑ ИТАР-ТАСС, Статья «Премьера мультфильма „Кин-дза-дза“ должна состояться в 2010 году». Деловая газета «Взгляд» (2-02-2008).''

5.	wiki-article 5 Деловая газета Взгляд: Освенцим может исчезнуть.

2) Russian government university: Moscow State University website:

A similar report had also appeared with regards to platinum chewing gum in June, 2006.

Link to the report '' This is not a post in a forum or a blog or a comment or a propaganda.

But this is a serious article written by the host official website of the Moscow state university fully funded by the Government of the Russian Federation.''

3) An article with regards to Platinum Chewing gum appeared on 21 September, 2008 in the Sunday Observer in Sri Lanka.

The photograph that is given with the article doesn't match with that of the original, but the content of the article does refer to Platinum Chewing Gum and Nanogum. I suppose this link will help.

The link is here

(Spbland (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC));


 * Comments: Thanks to the magic of Google Translate, I was able to read the first of those links. It makes some specific claims that should be verifiable or falsifiable. This is good because it offers a chance to break the deadlock. The first section deals with a Korean discovery which seems to be unrelated to platinum or gum, so we will skip over that. The section about the gum claims that it was made at the University of Tokyo and that they are behind the company making the gum. If we can come up with a peer reviewed paper from them corroborating their involvement in the gum then that will finally prove that this is not a hoax. If we can't, then all it proves is that a Russian newspaper got hoaxed into printing nonsense on its health pages. Given the unchecked nonsense that appears in the health pages of many UK newspapers, I could easily believe that this is possible. So what happens when you search the University of Tokyo's site for words like "platinum" and "chewing gum"? You get a few results for each but nothing connecting the two. This is not looking good for the gum. So what is next? Some Wikis. There is no point even looking at those. The next link is the Moscow University Alumni Club. Guess what? It is exactly the same text as before republished and sourced to www.vz.ru. So then we have the Sri-Lanka Sunday Observer. That offers us a few paragraphs and gives a name for the company: "Swarowski company". This fails to reveal a home page when Googled and is probably intended to be confused with Swarovski. So we have another newspaper getting hoaxed. So does this help with notability? RS sources can be hoaxed from time to time and hoaxes themselves can be notable. The fake Hitler Diaries spring to mind. That said, hoaxing a couple of minor newspapers into giving fairly minor coverage of a fake or dubious product does not seem enough for notability. We would need to RS coverage of the hoax itself before we had a solid source for an article about it. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment on Spbland's links above (edit-conflict with DanielRigal):
 * (1) Delovaya gazeta “Vzglyad” - I don't know the status of this newspaper, but the first part of the article is about an equally improbable-sounding Korean "fountain of youth" discovery. In regard to the rejuvenating chewing gum, it says that they "have created a company" and that it will be available "shortly" in Japanese supermarkets and pharmacies. That was in June, 2006 - where is this company? Where is its website, its advertising? Have there been no follow-up stories in over two years?


 * (2) is not the "host official website of the Moscow state university" - it is the website of the Moscow University alumni club, which is quite a different thing; and the text is copied from the Vzglyad article.


 * (3) The Sri Lanka Sunday Observer article, dated 21 Sep 2008, is a word-for-word copy of this blog post dated 5 Sep 2008, which is not a reliable source and does not say where its information comes from. It says the rights belong to the "Swarowski" company, but there is nothing about it on the Swarovski web-site.


 * JohnCD (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete on one or other of two different grounds. If it's real, then this is spam. If it's not, then it's a hoax. My feeling is that one of the main ingredients could be rhubarb. I haven't seen any mention of this stuff in New Scientist, which I would expect to if there were any substance to it. If the marketing is so high level - A+++ category? (my estimation) - why are the only references to it in forums, blogs and other FREE places to put rubbish post interesting info? Peridon (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2009 (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.