Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Mel honey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 Keep per the WP:SNOWBALL clause. Any merge discussions can be taken to the talk page. (NAC) Tavix (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Life Mel honey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
I speedy deleted this as blatant advert. The editor protested and, while I think my judgment was correct, I have sufficient doubt to bring it here. I see no indication of notability. The author found one study on the product. Fails notability in my book. Pigman☿ 00:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep While notability is, admittedly, marginal, the product has been the subject of medical study and high-profile celebrity news coverage. I took out the spammy writing and brought it closer to acceptable Wiki-language. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the additional news source, Ecoleetage. It really improves the article and the argument to keep it. As you say, it's borderline notability. I still come down on the delete side unless more substantive stuff can be turned up but that's me. I prefer more solid sourcing than an entertainment story basically consisting of restating the PR info from the company and a couple of celebrity purchasers. Pigman☿ 02:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the entertainment story came from Harrods, not the Life Mel people -- I saw four different versions of that story and all of them quoted Harrods as hyping up Sienna and Kylie as the honey lovers. But even if we overlook Sienna and Kylie (which is pretty hard...hellooooooo, ladies!), this has been the subject of an independent medical study published in the 2006 edition of Medical Oncology. That, by itself, should be enough to push it over the margin. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad I brought it here. I seriously fell down on what could be found on Life Mel. I don't consider the story coming from Harrod's much different than if it was from the Mel people: they are selling the stuff and thus have an interest in promoting it. And at £42 per 120g, the profit margin must be nice. I'm also not a fan of the idea that whatever a "celebrity" buys is instantly notable. A factor to consider perhaps but it's too close to "inherited notability" for my taste. Maybe it's just me but I clearly see the hand of Harrod PR releases behind the content of all these news stories. In other words, a kind of deliberately manufactured notability. Obviously consensus is heavily in favour of keeping the article right now so I don't think my argument will hold much water to the end result of the discussion. Pigman☿ 04:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think one of the best rationales for keeping the article is the fact that it's widely mentioned on discussion boards for people with cancer, yet is supported only by a small, uncontrolled study and some case reports from a conference poster. A more balanced view of the evidence would be useful. The Guardian blog[1] is a good source, but I'm not sure what we've determined before on whether the online blogs of major newspapers are sufficiently reliable as sources, even when authored by the journalists that work on the main newspaper. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed on the best rationale. How do you know the study was small and uncontrolled? I was wondering about the quality of study but didn't know where to check for details. My understanding of newspapers blogs is that they vary widely/wildly in quality and reliability from newspaper to newspaper. Personally, I'd probably take it on a case-by-case basis but I don't know if that's WP consensus in any way. There is a reliable sources noticeboard where such a question could probably be answered. Pigman☿ 07:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The full-text paper is available online as pdf: [2] I'll drop a note at the reliable sources noticeboard, see if they have any feel for the Guardian Science blog. It looks reasonably reputable to me, and the entry appears to be written by one of The Guardian's science correspondents, but I don't read the blog regularly. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed on the best rationale. How do you know the study was small and uncontrolled? I was wondering about the quality of study but didn't know where to check for details. My understanding of newspapers blogs is that they vary widely/wildly in quality and reliability from newspaper to newspaper. Personally, I'd probably take it on a case-by-case basis but I don't know if that's WP consensus in any way. There is a reliable sources noticeboard where such a question could probably be answered. Pigman☿ 07:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think one of the best rationales for keeping the article is the fact that it's widely mentioned on discussion boards for people with cancer, yet is supported only by a small, uncontrolled study and some case reports from a conference poster. A more balanced view of the evidence would be useful. The Guardian blog[1] is a good source, but I'm not sure what we've determined before on whether the online blogs of major newspapers are sufficiently reliable as sources, even when authored by the journalists that work on the main newspaper. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad I brought it here. I seriously fell down on what could be found on Life Mel. I don't consider the story coming from Harrod's much different than if it was from the Mel people: they are selling the stuff and thus have an interest in promoting it. And at £42 per 120g, the profit margin must be nice. I'm also not a fan of the idea that whatever a "celebrity" buys is instantly notable. A factor to consider perhaps but it's too close to "inherited notability" for my taste. Maybe it's just me but I clearly see the hand of Harrod PR releases behind the content of all these news stories. In other words, a kind of deliberately manufactured notability. Obviously consensus is heavily in favour of keeping the article right now so I don't think my argument will hold much water to the end result of the discussion. Pigman☿ 04:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the entertainment story came from Harrods, not the Life Mel people -- I saw four different versions of that story and all of them quoted Harrods as hyping up Sienna and Kylie as the honey lovers. But even if we overlook Sienna and Kylie (which is pretty hard...hellooooooo, ladies!), this has been the subject of an independent medical study published in the 2006 edition of Medical Oncology. That, by itself, should be enough to push it over the margin. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the additional news source, Ecoleetage. It really improves the article and the argument to keep it. As you say, it's borderline notability. I still come down on the delete side unless more substantive stuff can be turned up but that's me. I prefer more solid sourcing than an entertainment story basically consisting of restating the PR info from the company and a couple of celebrity purchasers. Pigman☿ 02:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 01:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <T·C> 01:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Good work Eco.... Johnfos (talk) 01:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable fad; advertisement; fringe science —G716 <T·C> 01:38, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Ecoleetage's cleanup. Themfromspace (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Added a couple more sources and a second clinical study. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be the same Medical Oncology reference. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My bad. Medical jargon is a foriegn language to me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Seems a valid potential alternative medicine, with one published study & a conference abstract on case studies (see refs in article), plus some national newspaper & television coverage (ITV This Morning referred to: [3]). Some more independent mentions: Guardian Science blog, Apitherapy News, Sky News, Leeds Beekeepers Association, Channel 4 news feed It's also mentioned at many cancer support group boards, so there are likely to be readers looking for it here. I've added a link to the pdf of the article so that readers can evaluate the claims. It should probably be moved to Life Mel Honey, as that seems to be the name used. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to another sound rescue effort by Ecoleetage who has established at least marginal, but acceptable notability with the addition of multiple sources that verify the subject's existence and interest to substantial enough people to justify inclusion on a paperless encyclopedia. I also made a minor grammartical correction to this only a couple days old article to help improve it further. Happy Holidays! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Apitherapy. There is enough sourced material (good job!) to be worth a section, but this article is all about the product's use as an alternative medicine. Some nice sources discussing the significance of the production process or LMH's impact on society or the business world or something like that would move me into the keep camp. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.