Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travelan


 * 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. clear consensus  DGG ( talk ) 09:24, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Travelan

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

PROD removed in bad faith. Per 's PROD, "No evidence of satisfying Wikipedia's notability guidelines. None of the online references mentions Travelan. The one offline reference is a research paper, in which the abstract does not mention Travelan, and even if the paper does, one research paper which mentions it is not enough to establish notability." Origamiteⓣⓒ 05:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Origamiteⓣⓒ 05:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Origamiteⓣⓒ 05:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. I stand by what I said in my PROD, which Origamite has quoted above. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * delete fails WP:GNG. WP generally does not include brand name medicines unless international ly recognised. LibStar (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. PROD certainly removed in bad faith, and I replaced it, not realising I shouldn't. Sorry. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 15:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. I find considerable merit in JamesBWatson's and Origamite's (edit sorry I meant Libstar's) arguments: lack of notable sources, plus the rules about branded medicines. In addition, there is already a good article about this subject at Colostrum for anyone interested in the subject. The only reason for keeping the article would be for promotional purposes, and this is simply not allowed. --Mrjulesd (talk)  17:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - Two articles in LifeScientist (1 and 2) are all I could find besides press releases and a passing mention in Herald Sun discussing the parent companies stock price. JTdale   Talk 12:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - The article was created, so far as I can tell, by someone employed by the product's manufacturer, and later embellished by an admitted company employee. I did my best to WP:AGF by removing promotional content and otherwise making it as WP:NPOV as possible. Continued interference from the company, however, has made the article more trouble to the project than it is worth, IMHO.  I might have voted otherwise, even in the face of the obvious promotional overtones, if there were even a shred of objective evidence that the product is effective under real-world conditions, but there simply isn't any.  DoctorJoeE  review transgressions/ talk to me!  18:07, 10 November 2014 (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.