Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prevagen


 * 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  | Talk 00:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Prevagen

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

Non-notable commercial product: the only reference to the product itself (rather than the active ingredient, for which WP already has an article) is from a press release by the company selling the product. The protein the product is based on is notable, and the research relating to it is notable, but the product itself does not meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. This is basically advertisement disguised as an article. MuffledThud (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —MuffledThud (talk) 06:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete due to the lack of independent sources about the product which suggest notability. Any useful information/references pertaining to the active ingredient can be merged into aequorin or other articles as appropriate.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, the only published article I can find on this is this in Medical Hypotheses. Thia article was written by the creator of the supplement, so is not an independent source, and Med. Hypotheses is a not a peer reviewed journal and is dedicated to the promotion of unproven ideas, so this isn't a reliable source. No prejudice against recreation once their "clinical trial" has been published anywhere apart from press releases and their own website, but until then the article fails WP:V. As a personal comment on the science, I'd be surprised if a calcium-binding protein could survive pH 2 in the stomach, the proteases in the gut, be absorbed into the bloodstream, cross the blood-brain barrier and then enter neurons. If this is indeed the case, I suggest they submit these extraordinary results to Nature. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Tim Vickers (talk) 16:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. But, this page wouldn't be good even with such sources, as the active ingredient already has a page, so no use of an ad-page like this. Narayanese (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Tim Vickers. I added a paragraph to the article a couple of days ago explaining that (while the article was prodded), but an IP has removed it today.  Doesn't matter much, this article will shortly be history. Looie496 (talk) 21:04, 6 April 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.