Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr Myko San – Health from Mushrooms

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. The consensus is to delete. Almost all of the 'keeps' are from IPs with no edits other than to this page or the article page. I see nothing in their arguments that has appeared to convince the 'delete' comments PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Dr Myko San – Health from Mushrooms

Dr Myko San – Health from Mushrooms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be nonnotable Croatian company, article likely promotional in intent. There are many references, nearly all offline (or dead links or behind paywalls) and nearly all in Croatian, so hard to verify, but a Croatian speaker has found them suspect (see article talk page). Happy to withdraw this if there are indeed independent verifiable secondary sources that treat this company in detail, and therefore establish notability. However, discussion on the talk page makes it much more likely what we have are passing mentions, primary sources, and placed nonindependent content instead. Martinp (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —Timbouctou (talk) 03:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: I have had an eye on this article for awhile, since it seemed clearly promotional, but the sourcing is in Croatian and I was unable to make head or tail of it. If there's even a suggestion that the sourcing is iffy, then I think this should clearly be deleted since it's setting off pretty much every other alarm bell I can think of. MastCell ^Talk 03:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Delete: promotional, evidently not verifiable, at best alt-med stub anyhowLeadSongDog come howl! 05:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment This was fishy to me from the first day I saw it, but I couldn't put my finger on it because it's so niche. In the meantime I saw them mentioned one single time on a Croatian TV programme (can't remember which exact station), but I'm not sure if it was just a commercial or actual independent coverage. Either way, they're something of an oddity, so their mainstream media coverage might just relate to people being curious. IMO notability needs to be demonstrated within their field - for example this "International Medicinal Mushroom Conference" they mention probably gathers people related to the field who could attest to Myko San's relevance, but why don't we have an article about that? I'm perplexed. It could all be fringe spam, then again it could be like Zdenko Domančić (who is also niche medicine, and has achieved some notability in .hr, yet doesn't have an en: article). Perhaps it's best to insist on more quality sources in this case. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment from nominator. Article creator has posted an extensive response on article talk page, advocating article be kept, and promising to make changes by end of this week. Martinp (talk) 22:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I'm a native speaker of Croatian language and the initial creator of this article (if this disqualifies me, please just check out Subtitled YouTube Video). I also wish to emphasize that I am not affiliated with the company.

I cannot agree at all with the promotional qualification. I've tried to provide all the information on the company I could find that was verifiable and edit it as needed to avoid promotional content that was present in a minority of sources. In one instance I've made sure that non-verified claims by the company itself is read as such. The majority of the sources used are magazines. Although some cannot be considered trustworthy (24 sata and Arena are tabloids and celebrity/lifestyle magazines) those are only used to support other, more notable magazines and never on their own. For other magazines, there are no reasonable doubts, as per WP:VERIFY#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source - these include Vjesnik, Vecernji list and, especially, in health magazines like 'Doktor u kuci' and 'Svijet zdravlja'. These are expert-reviewed articles and verifiably not promotional in intent or form. Tagging such sources as unreliable is inaccurate and against the guidelines given in WP:Verifiability#Sources. These take precedence over those guidelines given in WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) as found in the short introduction of the latter. It should also be noted that, while available, the WP policy WP: No original research excludes such sources which may be regarded as more reliable (as per WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)).

Regarding the problems with foreign language sources, one editor has warned against possible discrimination of such sources - they may be verifiable, even if they cannot be verified by you. I suggest using machine-translation with back-translation (better services have it built-in), so you can double check the accuracy of the translation. Additional ideas for improving the verifiability of foreign sources have also recently been suggested (see Talk page).

I don't want to offend anyone, but I see a lot of activity on the Talk pages of this article and very little, if any constructive work on the article itself - clearly we need more researchers to find relevant information and editors to include them on this page. The article is indeed dated (especially considering that lots more new information is available online) and the dead links MUST be changed ASAP (which as you know is a constant problem with many articles on WP); however, instead of judging the present content and continually tagging it, it would be more productive to actually work to make this article better.

After just one quick search on the company I found some very interesting news, such as that the company has completed the registration of 2 preparations by the Ministry of Health - the first registration of medicinals from medicinal mushrooms in Europe - this has been published in local media and in International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms (New Dietary Supplements from Medicinal Mushrooms: Dr Myko San—A Registration Report (Free Abstract)). They have completed the research mentioned in the article and published some interesting results. They are the organizers of the 6th International Medicinal Mushroom Conference 2011 (IMMC6), which will be held in Zagreb, Croatia and gather 400-500 scientists in the biggest and most important conference in the medicinal mushrooms field (see IMMC6 Official Website and Subtitled YouTube Video). This should be edited in. In my humble opinion, any notability concerns have just been busted beyond salvation.

This article should not be deleted - but it must be improved. New information demonstrating notability (see above for the results of a 1 minute search effort), updated links and, maybe, different wording in few places can make all the difference needed. If this is/can be done, I cannot see any reasons to remove it.

I can and plan to help with research and editing - I can make some edits by the end of the week. Please feel free to contact me for any clarification and I invite you to try and make the article better with me.

I want to close by stating that choosing to remove or keep this article should be a logical and not an emotional decision. I don't need to like or agree with it. If this article really cannot be improved, then let's remove it, but first we need to ensure we are not making a blunder. A simple Google/YouTube search returned some results we cannot just ignore and which, for me, suggest that we should update it and keep it. Yamabushi1981 (talk) 22:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yamabushi, thanks for your reply, and thanks for working on an article you feel will improve the encyclopedia. On the one hand, it is tricky in specialized fields for most people to contribute meaningfully to specific articles, and on the other hand, there is a frequent pattern of articles on wikipedia that are promotional copy on nonnotable companies about which there are insufficient verifiable reliable sources to write independent articles. The combination of the 2 is what drives the frustration you are facing.

Regarding the sources you mention above, IMMC6 has Dr Myko San as its principal organizer and sponsor. While this is not in itself bad in any way, it does mean that IMMC6 coverage of Dr Myko San is not an independent source. The journal article is on the compounds, not the company, and is in fact authored by an employee of Dr Myko San. So again does not establish notability - though if the article is kept, should be mentioned in it, of course. I don't know what to say about the Google video - can't watch it here. I may be wrong, but the whole thing sounds to me like a young company that is doing all sorts of Great Things, but about which there is not yet the level of independent coverage - of the company - to write a wikipedia article about the company. Thanks for your collaborative attitude on all of this - having work you have slaved over put up for deletion is, we all realize, not pleasant. Martinp (talk) 23:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

IMMC6 cannot and does not cover Dr Myko San. IMMC6 stands for 6th International Medicinal Mushroom Conference. International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms is a peer-reviewed scientific journal and its neutrality, independence and reliability cannot be reasonably contested.

(Taken from Talk Page) To attempt to satisfy notability concerns, we must first define them. WP:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Companies states "Companies reported as significant subjects of news coverage are usually sufficiently notable." Same source states: "Local retailers and service merchants... are generally deleted, with exceptions, including first-of-a-kind businesses..."

More importantly, WP:Company states "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it." "Notable" is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance," and even organizations that editors personally believe are "important" are only accepted as notable if they can be shown to have attracted notice. Large organizations and their products are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability. However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products."

I will attempt to show that the company has received substantial news coverage - where it is often recognized as a first-of-a-kind in Europe. In short, I need to show reliable, independent, secondary, created by a third-party, sources to prove this. It must also be verifiable.

I would like to start by showing the programmes made by various national and independent Croatian and Slovenian televisions (one video is Myko San's TV advertisement, so that's out). Some of these have already been translated (I can see the translations are correct, but I haven't checked all of them, 9 videos in all; another native Croatian speaker can double-check it). The videos can be found at Myko San on YouTube, I hope you can watch them ([User:Martinp] was unable to access them; however, the "Show video statistics" shows most of them have been successfully accessed from around the world). All of these are in the form of an interview with Dr. Jakopovic, some of them feature others, like doctors and a scientist from a leading Croatian Rudjer Boskovic Institute. Dr. Jakopovic appears to be considered an expert in these videos. A link Ivan Jakopovic Articles on International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms reveals that he is on the editorial board of this scientific journal and a writer of peer-reviewed scientific works, so he can reasonably be expected to be an expert in this field. The peer-reviewed nature of the works suppress possible promotional activity. The videos given above are a reliable, created by independent third parties source, and the content can easily be verified. In my view, these demonstrate notability ie. "being noticed" beyond a shadow of doubt.

I know of no secondary TV sources. It is easier and makes for a better programme to bring the guest in and do the interview. It is also harder to find any such videos because the company has not collected them (as the above YT obviously have been). I will check the written media, and am sure to find something soon - the IMMC6 conference that the company organizes ('safest source': Call to IMMC6) will take place in September. (Actually, in the past few days I've stumbled on some material, I will check it and if it is any good will use in the update.)

In my personal opinion, this article can be shown to be notable quite easily... the problem starts when we attempt to update it with the newest information. It can be difficult to find worthwhile information in a myriad of subpar sources surrounding companies in general - mostly thousands of sites rehashing the same content until it becomes unclear what is verifiable, what is important and whether it is new or outdated.

Let's keep it simple. All that as it may be, we first need one reliable source to establish notability. While having Jakopovich listed on the IJMM's editorial board is superficially encouraging, his lack of publications in other journals is not, and his apparent position with the company would preclude his publications from being reliable sources about the company. The videos are just one step more inconvenient, but open sites such as youtube are rarely helpful: see wp:Youtube. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I have shown proof of 9 videos of TV programmes made by 5 different networks from 2 countries. Are you really disputing notability? Most indisputably notable articles on Wikipedia have a lot less proof of notability than that. These programmes are used here to establish notability, not factual accuracy of any detail, so it really is not covered under Wp:Youtube possible objections. Also, it doesn't need to be linked in the article and may reside on the talk page. If you can doubt that numerous newscasts from independent networks focused on the company itself are able to prove notability, what could possibly satisfy?

Regarding the lack of publications in other journals... did you thoroughly check that? And even if that is true, does it somehow reduce the value of the sources we have already found?

"Superficially encouraging, inconvenient videos"... please beware of weasel words.

Notability concern tags must be removed immediately, as it just doesn't make any sense in view of the general form of Wikipedia articles and the method of judging notability on WP as a whole. If that are the grounds for proposed deletion of article, the proposition must be revoked immediately. Yamabushi1981 (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

While wp:Weasel pertains to articlespace, we try to be diplomatic in talkspaces. AFD processes are seldom enjoyable. Some of us do not have bandwidth to burn on youtube videos. Can you simply state what is in one of these that would establish it as a reliable source? Who provides independent information apart from the company's representatives? LeadSongDog come howl! 18:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep. As a previous reviewer has noted, there is nothing to dispute notability here. There are feature articles on the company in leading Croatian broadsheets, including a non-commercial, government-owned daily newspaper Vjesnik (and Internet searches show coverage in magazines and newspapers in several other countries as well) as well as in health magazines. The company website links to a number of TV appearances of its managing director, including on the main national television programmes in Croatia and Slovenia.
  Most importantly, the company is hosting the 6th international medicinal mushroom conference which gathers hundreds of scientists (this website, indpendendent in relation to this company, shows this is clearly a significant scientific event - http://www.alphay.com/IMMC5en/index.html). Moreover, there have been at least two peer-reviewed articles on the company in the scientific journal which deals with this topic, the company has cooperated with the main Croatian research centre Rudjer Boskovic Institute, etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.129.69 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 14 July 2011
• Delete. The sources don't come across as independent for the purpose of this article. See analysis by LeadSongDog above. International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms and the International Medicinal Mushroom Conference a both closely affiliated with this company. And paid news/ad TV packages are nothing new, especially in Central & Eastern Europe. Google for paid news, because Wikipedia doesn't cover this topic very well. FuFoFuEd (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep: User FuFoFuEd, I expect you can prove that International Journal of Medicinal Mushrooms, started by a Ukrainian academician and published in the USA and a scientific magazine reviewed by dozens of expert editors (some of them managers of competing companies), is closely affiliated with the company. Also, please explain how can an International Scientific Conference, 6th so far, which has been previously organized in Ukraine (with the help of government), Thailand (under the direct patronage of the king), USA (by another private company), Slovenia, and China (yet another private company) which gathers and subsequently publishes works of hundreds of scientists across the globe be affiliated with a small Croatian company. The comment is obviously totally made up and as such, inconsequential.

I call for established notability, now lets concentrate on finding appropriate sources. Is anyone even searching for sources or is this a philosophical debate? 93.136.73.0 (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — 93.136.73.0 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep: Good points by the last person. As regards Croatian and Slovenian media, i.e. Croatian and Slovenian state television, it's quite wrong to talk of them simply as advert sellers. They are publicly owned and specific laws preclude such practice. One of the videos on the Croatian national TV is actually a "cancer month" documentary special. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.0.131 (talk) 20:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — 92.27.0.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Oh, and I noticed two independent sources state that the company has conducted research in cooperation with the Croatian Ministry of Science. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.0.131 (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC) — 92.27.0.131 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete I do not think that this company passes our notability threshold. OK, so they sell products made from mushrooms which they claim can cure cancer. Even if we disregard the fact that what they claim their products can do is dubious, the issue of how notable the company is remains. And their visibility in local business publications such as Poslovni dnevnik or Business.hr is practically non-existent. In fact they are only visible in popular health magazines (which are, coincidentally, their main advertising target). Yeah, they may have cooperated in some research sponsored by the ministry of science which aims to prove the medicinal properties of shrooms. So? Is any company which participates in government-sponsored reasearch inherently notable? I think not. Also, I'd like to ask the closing admin to ignore the obvious sock-puppeting/meat-puppeting going on here. Timbouctou (talk) 10:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: I hope that anyone who has read the entire discussion here and on the talk pages can clearly see that the article is notable enough, as per WP:Notability and WP:COMPANY guidelines. They are the first producers in Europe, first to register their preparations as supplements, they've started med. mush. research in Croatia (first on their own funds, and after publishing the first Croatian work in that field have got the governmental backing). And the media have found them notable enough to call them many times for talk shows (at least 5 TV networks from at least 2 countries) and there are many independent newspaper and even scientific community accounts. And as you can see (see DMS References) they have been covered by Business.hr (which is actually a mediocre paper, IMHO), if that is of any special significance.

The article is written using all the proper procedure, and the wording of primary sources results, of those who did the research, was unchanged as instructed by WP:MEDRS.

It never categorically states anything about curing cancers. Curing cancer is basically a misnomer in today's oncology, and the clinicians can at best give a disease-free status. The cancer cannot, as yet, ever be said to have been cured. And the company makes it very clear about that (see Principles of use (pt4)). Most importantly, there is no such claim in any of the sources and consequently anywhere in the article. And, very importantly Wikipedia is not a doctor.

Regarding the alleged "obvious" sock/meat-puppeting: to kill this allegation right away, let me tell you that user FuFoFuEd has put my profile up for Sockpuppet investigation but the investigation cleared me.

(it is actually quite obvious, since my IP is in Croatia, and 2 other editors that were suspected were from different parts of United Kingdom. (check ip) ) Neither of these users, FuFoFuEd nor Timbouctou have contacted me or tried anything to check, and they definitely did not follow such basic principles as WP:Assuming good faith or Wikipedia:Don't be quick to assume that someone is a sockpuppet. This is very unprofessional behavior for a WP editor - having the power to change or influence the outcome of WP articles must come with a strong sense of responsibility and a good knowledge of guidelines and fundamental principles. Personal bias and unsubstantiated claims must be always kept in check as this project is bigger than individuals - the consensus that will improve the article most wins. Yamabushi1981 (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Strong keep

There is great stuff in this article. The person who said it should be deleted last didn't read or chose to ignore many of the previous points and evidence. Actually it was reported on in some business newspapers it seems according to sources in the article, but what does that matter even if they hadn't? Since when are business publications more important in terms of notability than national television stations and scientific journals and scientific associations like this conference thing? Why are we wasting our time with such fruitless discussions considering the sea of rubish on wikipedia we really should be sorting out, not attacking scientific pioneers... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.88.210.86 (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2011 (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.