- Lipo-flavonoid (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Lack of discussion / interruption of edits intended to correct the reasons given to delete the article.
This is an article that I was actively in the process of fixing to conform with WP standards, when it was deleted without notice or discussion. The grounds for deletion were claimed to be G-11, but the fixes were intended to correct this so interested parties could see the published evidence that this preparation is not effective for the claimed diseases. The ubiquity of the advertisements makes the article notable, and the corrections necessary to eliminate bias. An objection to the article was that there were no articles linking to it, so I was providing some from Ménière's disease and Tinnitus to the deleted article. However, some editors were objecting to them, even though they were sourced from the peer-reviewed medical lliterature, and I was in the process of revising them. My added links supported by a new reference from the literature were deleted by the same editor, with no reason given, and a note regarding the deletion I placed on that editor's talk page was also deleted by that editor. Since edits were being deleted without cause, I reverted them and asked for discussion, referrring editors to the talk:Lipo-flavonoid for discussion. Instead that page, along with the base article Lipo-flavonoid was deleted instead of holding a discussion. --Zeamays (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- "the peer reviewed medical literature" is not what WP:MEDRS calls for. There are no MEDRS refs about Lipo-flavonoids and the page that was deleted was indeed a blatant advertisement with promotional WP:OR in the footnotes. There is nothing stopping the Zeamays from trying to create a new draft, which I recommend they put through WP:AFC... but it will not stick around long because there are no MEDRS refs to use. There was nothing to work with in the deleted version. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If you feel that the cited literature does not meet WP:MEDRS, then as a conscientious editor, you will explain why it does not. It is interesting that Jytdog's search didn't find the references my search located. The articles cited were clinical trials, not preliminary or in vitro studies, which is what the WP:MEDRS standards are looking to weed out. But Jytdog misses the point that negative results with lipo-flavonoid was the result of two somewhat different clinical trials. I consider it an important responsiblity to show when 'alternative medicine' products touted in ads on TV are not going to be effective. --Zeamays (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the original article was excessively positive, but I hoped that by presenting the available high-quality negative results a proper cautionary balance could be obtained. --Zeamays (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't do "balance". We source content from high quality secondary sources and where there are none we do not descend into "battle of the primary sources" which is just WP:OR, and cannot meet WP:NPOV, as NPOV depends on high quality secondary sources. The article should never have been in WP and was created as an advertisement. We flush the toilet and get rid of shit that was dumped into WP; that is what G11 is for. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:MEDRS standard does not require secondary or tertiary references where there are none, instead it requires "common sense". I have no way of knowing why this article was written, although I infer it was written by a favorable editor. Furthermore the references I cited explicitly presented clearly stated conclusions and cannot be described as my "original research". They were from NLM-indexed, established publications, from well-known medical research groups. --Zeamays (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was deleted because it was advertising per G11. You are repeatedly barking up the wrong tree with the MEDRS stuff here.Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I needed to answer your repeated complaints, Jytdog. My major complaint in this appeal is that I was in the process of fixing up the article to achieve balance when it was deleted. --Zeamays (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think eliminating this page does a disservice to Wikipedia readers. I have not seen the latest revisions of the page, but when I last edited it (admittedly a while ago) it provided a fair and balanced (though largely negative) review of the product based on the medical literature, not a promotional piece. Now the Wikipedia reader who wonders about the value of this highly advertised product finds nothing. This is very disappointing. Joalkap (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- List at AfD G11 doesn't just require that the page was created for the purpose of promoting something, it also requires that the page is promotionally worded. If you decide to promote your product by writing a neutral encyclopedia article about it then it doesn't qualify for G11. The wording of this article wasn't particularly promotional and it included a paragraph explaining that there is no good evidence the product is effective against any of the things it supposedly treats, which would be a very strange thing to put in an advert. MEDRS concerns should be taken to AfD. Hut 8.5 07:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- List at AFD Too much ambiguity for WP:G11. Any promotion could be for a competitive product, "This product is inert in the human body and that is why it is able to be sold as a vitamin".[1] Thincat (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- List at AFD with much respect for DGG, I think this would be better for AfD. G11 requires unamibigious promotional tone. XfD can delete for promotional intent all it wants. Sending this for community discussion is best. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- List at AFD. The references in the existing (deleted) text are garbage. They're all either first-party, or primary sources. But, I found three sources that look like reasonable WP:RS: healthline.com, WebMD, and consumerlab.com. I'm not sure this would pass AfD, but there's enough here to get past the WP:CSD bar. I don't blame the deleting admin: The current page is crap. But it's possible a better article could be written on the subject. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- This is truly stupid bureaucracy. The page was a piece of shit fundamental advertisement. If somebody wants an article write one. What a CWOT drama-queen ball. Really. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Jytdog, while it's true that most revisions of this article - going back more than a decade! - read like the narration to a television ad, there's plenty that don't. Even the version you tagged wasn't one of them. Yes, the references in it are appalling and the editorializing in them worse, but that's easily fixed by removing just about all of them. What we have here isn't an article that's purely advertisement; it's an article that's periodically taken over by spammers. The proper tool to fix that isn't necessarily deletion. —Cryptic 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it wasn't. It still had ridiculous OR footnotes selling the shit, and the content trying to "balance" was just lipstick on a pig, sourced to refs that were not acceptable.Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have no objection to undeleting and listing at AfD. I suggest someone else close this accordingly. (and AfD has one advantage: it permits the use of G4 upon re-creation) DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- List at AfD. Looking at the cached copy, it was a <slightly> bad G11. A decent attempt was made <though unsuccessfully> at sourcing. I expect it to be deleted at AfD. Nothing to do with Lipid or Flavonoid, but a catchy name to catch the susceptible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
|
