Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sobrietol


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Sobrietol

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

Disguised advertising for nonnotable "health supplement". NawlinWiki (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rewrite per WP:NPOV,     indicate notability per WP:GNG.  The Nordic Goddess Kristen  Worship her  05:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: The three citations purporting to be for "peer-reviewed science" are either broken or irrelevant; a random sampling of the other citations indicates original research and shows all the signs of junk science. WP:FRINGE seems to apply here. Accounting4Taste: talk 05:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Still Delete. I was asked to re-examine this article after its rewriting, and I believe that the guidelines of WP:FRINGE are the most appropriate ones to apply.  I quote: "Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is.[1] Since Wikipedia describes significant opinions in its articles, with representation in proportion to their prominence,[2] it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant subjects. Other well-known, reliable, and verifiable sources that discuss an idea are required so that Wikipedia does not become the primary source for fringe theories. Furthermore, one may not be able to write about a fringe theory in a neutral manner if there are no independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality about it.".  I looked at all the sources so thoughtfully and thoroughly provided -- I can't quarrel with the amount of work that's gone into this, which is impressive, I merely disagree with the conclusion.  I don't see "other well-known, reliable (emphasis mine) and verifiable sources", I definitely don't see any peer-reviewed science, and I don't wish "Wikipedia to become the primary source for fringe theories".  I cheerfully admit that I have a bias against furthering the commercial applications of what I see as junk science, and I feel there is the strong possibility that Wikipedia is being used here to promote a commmercial product that is possibly not only useless but actually dangerous.  Accounting4Taste: talk 17:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If one were to propose a novel theory of physics, an appropriate forum would be an article in a respected peer-reviewed journal, not the evening news. But despite the fact that the manufacturers of Sobrietol have made dubious health claims for their product, it still is a consumer product, not a new scientific theory.  Therefore, its notability should be evaluated under the standards applied to other consumer products, for which coverage in the mainstream media is sufficient to show notability per WP:GNG. An NPOV article does not "promote a commmercial product" unless we believe that "any publicity is good publicity", since the current version adequately conveys the likely inefficacy, side effects, and potential dangers of the product reported by the news programs that evaluated it.  The Nordic Goddess Kristen  Worship her  23:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The current original article is was indeed abysmal, full of unreliable sources, misuse of sources, original research, etc. But the question that AFD normally resolves is whether an article's subject is acceptable, normally whether it meets WP:N, and in any case whether an article consistent with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR could be written on it. The coverage of Sobrietol specifically in third-party WP:RS noted in my comment above would suggest that this article's subject is acceptable for inclusion. The article itself requires some radical editing, which I will attempt soon.  The Nordic Goddess Kristen  Worship her  05:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've begun to rewrite the article, which has necessarily involved a drastic removal of inappropriate content, under the theory that it's better to temporarily have a short, NPOV stub than an OR puff piece. The extent of coverage of Sobrietol in third-party WP:RS leaves significant room for appropriate expansion.  The Nordic Goddess Kristen  Worship her  05:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the article. Previous version was abysmal, Kristen's is much better.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  08:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Since when have "experiments" conducted by television newsrooms been reliable, verifiable sources of the efficacy and safety of drugs? This is junk science at its worst. &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 12:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- we aren't considering the efficacy and safety of drugs. Wikipedia can't realistically do that and doesn't try.  We're considering the drug in terms of Wikipedia policy only... so the only purpose a mention in a TV newsroom serves is notability.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:44, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly: regardless of the merits of the TV newsrooms' experimental methodology, their reporting is at least reliable for the purpose of showing that they conducted these experiments with Sobrietol. Given the extent of this reporting, it constitutes significant coverage in reliable sources and establishes the product's notability per WP:GNG. Obviously, if we did have articles in peer reviewed medical journals, these would be sources reliable for showing "efficacy and safety of drugs", and we would use them in preference to television reporting. But we take subjects as we find them and do not require scientifically valid sources to establish notability.  The Nordic Goddess Kristen  Worship her 15:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right - I'll be back later and fix the article to reflect that the news reports don't assess E&S. &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 15:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, strongly. For an alleged "nutritional supplement", both the article and the official site are alarmingly coy about the ingredients.  I was able to track down their patent, which indicates that it contains QADH, QALDH, and what looks to be mother of vinegar.  There's some very dubious stuff going on here. You generally can't patent foods or recipes, and in the USA "nutritional supplements" aren't intended to "diagnose, cure, or treat any medical condition". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:GNG, the deletion or retention of an article is not determined by whether we believe that its subject is legitimate or lawfully marketed, but rather by whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources, a standard that the extensive television news coverage seems to meet.  The Nordic Goddess Kristen  Worship her 15:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. In case this is kept, I added the list of ingredients mentioned in the patent.  I'd be happier seeing this stay if the ingredients are in fact listed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep--Sources found by Kristen are enough to establish the notability of the subject . We are no here to pass judgment about the efficacy of the drug.--J.Mundo (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per the improvements made. Spam has been removed, and sources easily indicate notability. MuZemike 17:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - the product is very likely snake oil, but the coverage found demonstrates notability. -- Whpq (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * delete, only about 3 WP:RS, the rest of the 8 mentions are press releases, and one which only mentions the product name along with other similar products. Sticky Parkin 18:58, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the product is discussed at length in five RS    .  The standard of notability you appear to be applying, that the article's topic has been extensively discussed in at least four different WP:RS, greatly exceeds the requirements of WP:GNG :)  The Nordic Goddess Kristen  Worship her  19:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep Sure it is bunk, but a modicum of reliable sources treat it more than trivially. I think that there is a WP:RECENTISM case to be made here, though. Article almost certainly requires active monitoring to prevent recidivism from TNGK's much-improved version. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:45, 23 January 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.