Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Di-dehydroepiandrosterone

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 of the debate was Delete. --Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Di-dehydroepiandrosterone[edit]

Article on a seemingly non existant chemical, containing an (admittedly effective) OR debunk of a bogus product. Count the policy failures... WP:V, WP:NOR etc. Delete. Rockpocket (talk) 07:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with regret. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR debunk of a bogus product. a pity that wikipedia is not a OR-BSS. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 09:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have removed the OR (ie: the comment about the fact that the supposed archiving could not have happened because the site didn't exist on the date the article was supposedly archived). All that remains are objective links to Google, which is the authority showing that the two sites have no pages other than the spurious articles. Note that many other dubious medical treatments and fraudulent products are in Wikipedia, such as Ear candling, Bates Method, Laetrile, Calorad, Essiac, etc. The presence of these articles is of great value to people who might have wasted time and money if they had not had access to this information on Wikipedia. I urge you not to remove this valuable source of information about this fraud. --Jahat 09:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Interesting debunking of a fake chemical, but it is the actual content that is original research. Statements like Medline searches find no mention of this chemical, However, ihealthjournal.com is a fake site which only contains a homepage and links to blank pages, and finally, A Google search of pages belonging to wondersinscience.com similarly finds that the only content is the archived article on the supposed study, and their homepage, really drive that home. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 10:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is some content here which is OR and should be removed, let's remove it, leaving an entry which at least allows people to see that this is a fake product. --Jahat 10:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The problem as i see it, is that even though i do not doubt it, there is no verifiable source that says it is fake. So if we take the OR out we have just the claims of the Pherlure people. Yet there is no verifiable source that says it is real, so we take that out and we have nothing! The only policy justification for it staying is if it is a notable hoax that deserves an article, but i can find no verifiable source mentioning it as a hoax either. Rockpocket (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Every other place on the web claims this is a real product. This is the only place where the truth can be found. --Psage 10:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although arguing to keep, Psage's reasoning is, paradoxically, a textbook justification for deletion per WP:V. Rockpocket (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom Williamb 12:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This substance (or something with claims similar effects, especially spelling it would have an effect towards opposite sex), spooks through a major psychology magazine for long. Akidd dublin•tl•ctr-l 14:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-verifible, waste of space, wiki policy failures sweetb 16:49, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's all speculation, not something for wikipedia ujenk 19:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per sweetb. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this voting feels as being attacked by sockpuppets. Several voters have no or very short history:
Jahat (talk · contribs) registered May 5th, dozen of edits almost all on the AfDed page (keep),

Psage (talk · contribs), registered on May 29, 3 edits until the vote here (keep),

Sweetb (talk · contribs), first edit (delete),

62.193.236.96 (talk · contribs) masking as nonexistent ujenk (talk · contribs), first edit (delete).

I'd recommend to restart the AfD and require every voter to provide information on his expertise. Pavel Vozenilek 20:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds good to me. I'm clearly not a sockpuppet, however, since I'm the one posting the information, and the information is all easily verifiable. This is a deliberate persistent fraud which Wikipedia users need to know about.
Once again, I want to make the important point that this is not OR in the sense that it's my research which no one can verify from sources. The sources are all linked to and they are the websites themselves and Google. The comment that "Medline searches find no mention of this chemical" is verified through linking to Medline, again Medline is the authority, not me. So there is no real OR in this entry. All the sources are there. --Jahat 20:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be clear, WP:NOR says: "In order to avoid doing original research... it is essential that any primary source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication" Jahat's material is clearly an evaluation of information, but he cannot source a reputable third-party publication, hence it is OR. As for restarting the Afd, surely the closing Admin can simply evaluation the value of each editor's justification before making a decision. A vote is pretty meaningless without a reason. Rockpocket (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I find it interesting that the previous user is so persistent on posting non-verifiable information and assumptions on only this subject. To quote the user's edit from the second paragraph, "study appears to be fake", fourth paragraph "The fake study reference is found at another fake site". It appears the user was not sure in the second paragraph, but had convinced himself by the fourth paragraph. Wikipedia is for verifiable information, not opinions/assumptions possibly based on personal or business intentions--Sweetb 23:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's perfectly obvious if one clicks on the links that what I state is the case. This is a fraud with fake sites set up to promote a study that never happened. The people behind this are very aggressively defrauding people with a type of fraud that resembles phishing in some ways in that fake sites are being created. When people come to Wikipedia looking to see what di-dehydroepiandrosterone is, they should be able to find the information that it is a fake. There is nothing unverifiable in what was posted, and the authorities again are Medline and Google. --Jahat 02:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears you are the only one that wishes to keep this non-sense on here (possibly for personal or business reasons). Wikipedia is not a place for articles about substances that can not be confirmed to exist and can not be rebuted not to exist. That is not only my reasoning, but also Wiki policy WP:V, WP:NOR.--Sweetb 4:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete Article only verifies lack of evidence, claims cannot be verified as true or false. The rebuttals are not verifiable. --tiale 23:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article verifies that the sites are fake. But if the alternatives are no entry for this fake product, or an entry which links to the fake articles with no comment, giving people the impression that it's real, then I'd rather see the article deleted. Wikipedia should be giving people helpful information, not aiding frauders. --Jahat 22:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Showing lack of search results by google does not verify a site is fake. If you know how to properly search a site for it's pages, you will see that both referenced sites you claim are fake do have pages that exist, but are NOT shown in Google search results. This should serve as a fine example that lack of search results in Google, does not indiciate anything other than lack of search results in Google. It also shows that the edits are mistaken and clearly not from a WP:NPOV. I would agree that it should be deleted if there is no clear verification if the substance exists or clear verification that the substance does not exist.

Page on Ihealthjournal.com that is NOT Google listed:

http://www.ihealthjournal.com/findinformation/hormonecenter/alcohol3521-003.html

Page on wondersinscience.com that is NOT Google listed:

http://www.wondersinscience.com/archives/2006/0111/grogginess.html

--Sweetb 00:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason my comments were deleted, but it is necessary to mention that the extra pages were added to these sites SINCE the discussion on this page began on Wikipedia, and are possibly a response to the discussion, attempting to undermine the basis for stating that the sites in question are fake. --69.3.233.183 07:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I pointed out the pages that already existed. If you understand the way Googlebot works, you'll understand that there are millions of pages on the internet not indexed by Googlebot. This does not mean that "they do not exist" or "are fake", it simply means they are not spidered by Googlebot. --Sweetb 09:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at these sites several weeks ago, and they had no other pages in evidence other than the homepage and the articles on this imaginary chemical. Other pages gave a message claiming that a login was necessary. Why should the pages containing the fake study reference have no login but the other pages all require a login? Probably because there were no other pages until this whole sham was exposed. --69.3.233.183 09:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - In accordance with OTRS ticket number 2006051110012197. Factual errors and non-verifiability, plus it contains weasel words. Wikipedia is not the place for soapboxes:

"research supporting its effects appears to be fraudulent."
"This study appears to be fake"
"sole purpose of promulgating this false evidence."
"ihealthjournal.com is a fake site"
"The fake study reference is found at another fake site"

— Bastique▼^parler_voir 15:34, 12 May 2006 (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.