Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life Mel Honey

Add links
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 delete. Tone 14:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Life Mel Honey[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Life Mel Honey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Three unreliable / promotional sources, with a brief mention as a hoax in a science blog. There isn't enough verifiable information to support an article. And even as is, elevating this hoax on Wikipedia does a disservice to readers. Jontesta (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is some RS available and some reason to believe that the subject is notable. Lightburst (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' The "reliable source" given above is UK Daily/Sunday Express, which - is not one (I suggest installing the source quality highlighter to avoid such blunders); and nebulous "reasons to believe subject is notable" may be great at the Article Rescue Squadron but not at AfD. Of the sources given in the article, the only reliable one (Guardian) hashes it over as a scam. Not seeing sufficient coverage by suitable sources here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae: You should definitely do your own research rather than taking shots at me. If I find time I will locate other sources. For now I am rather upset by your disparaging remarks and I will log off this thing. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally there are many sources which speak to the many health benefits of honey - honey is generally considered to be a supplement -and that is where one needs to exercise good judgement regarding claims. Lightburst (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's leave out the passing mentions: The Porcza study (one half-sentence), which incidentally you have in there twice, and the book. That leaves the Zidan study and the two magazine articles. Yup, that's probably good enough for notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Med Oncology paper, Zidan et al, which is indexed not published by the U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health, is a pilot study without a control group from a general medical unit not an academic one. The journal itself is fine, but the paper isn't reliable for any substantive claims. Nor of course are its mentions in the press etc. The other possible RS don't mention this particular brand of honey and shouldn't be used to support it. The Guardian blog describes this product rather well. As quackery. Also, though the producers say their company didn't fund the trial, that doesn't exactly exclude any other conflict of interest. Pretty much any doctor with time on their hands and honey to sell - or with a friend who has honey to sell - could produce a "study" like this. It's worthless and so is this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trying hard to justify keeping any mention of this product in an encyclopedia: the only acceptable source here is the Guardian article. If we are to keep, it might be appropriate to present a stub clearly describing the overpromotion of the brand and the unreliable nature of the claims. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to rescue the article. Getting rid of the promotional material and the irrelevancies and the misunderstandings took a while. As the article now stands I'd still !vote for delete, but with less pressure on the keys than previously. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per our talk page discussion I have erased the pilot studies and other information discussed above and on the talk page. I have reinstated other items like the infobox, logo and the claims section. My hope is that we allow the rest of the article until the AfD is decided. Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per our talk page discussion, I propose to revert to my last version and await the result here on the only defensible version so far. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You want to delete the article here, but also want to delete most of it and leave it as a pointless stub during the AFD. The current version has reliable sources backing up all the information as it is written. Dream Focus 19:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - reads like an advert and a single study does not a honey notable make. Honey may well have some beneficial uses, but using those purported benefits to make this one honey brand seem notable fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Appears to be snake-oil and fails GNG.  Velella  Velella Talk   20:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and advertisement for a non-notable company. Graham Beards (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The Guardian gives it ample coverage but calls it a scam. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/aug/12/sexsellsbutfearand Then I see https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/is-honey-a-cureall-or-is-it-hype-dzf65gdptmz shows only a 1/4th of the article about it, the rest you have to pay to subscribe to see. It gets coverage at https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/959980/cancer-treatment-life-mel-honey-this-morning-dr-chris And if you search Wikipedia for www.express.co.uk it gets 23,438 results. I see nowhere on the Reliable Sources discussion board where it was determined if was not considered reliable source. Dream Focus 23:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the news articles in Israel21c, the Guardian, and the Telegraph, I would say that the product fulfils WP:GNG. The health claims are one thing, but the product itself is obviously notable as a product. The last time this article was nominated for deletion, the vote was overwhelmingly to keep, and for good reason. Company notability has nothing to do with the validity of health claims. Patiodweller (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the news articles in Israel21c, the Guardian, and the Telegraph, I would say that the product satisfies WP:GNG. Clearly notable. You may not like the health claims, but the company and its product are notable. This article dispassionately discusses the "scam" aspect. WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, it exists and can be verified, but the honey's sole claim to notability rests in its health benefits for cancer patients. The whole tone and point of the article is promotional. I can't see where that Israel21c piece is any help -- it reads exactly like a press release with no hint of skepticism, no contrary opinion, no disclaimers. If this were a type of honey some of the arguments above might hold water, but this is a brand, with dubious health claims. Allowing wikipedia to promote it feels skeevy. --Lockley (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable product, WP:nproduct, according to reliable news sources. Delete any specific unproven claims, but keep this article as a product of note.Behindthekeys (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The Daily Express is a far-right tabloid, whose current articles include such gems as "World War 3: China closes in on military partnership with Iran in terrifying warning to US", "'Suicidal' BBC Laura Kuenssberg's claim mobile charges will surge post-Brexit dismantled", and "Bible verses about coronavirus: What does the Bible say about COVID-19?". I have no opinion on this particular AFD at the moment, but I hope we aren't trying to legitimize the Daily Express as a reliable source here. Rorshacma (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The articles that actually go in-depth on the product, that are not obviously promotional, are from highly questionable sources, bordering on promoting pseudoscience. The only one that does not is the Guardian piece, whose whole purpose is to discredit every claim that could potentially make the product notable. Rorshacma (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Grauniad article is a blog, not a bylined piece. The n=30 paper is primary for the fact of its existence and fails MEDRS for its content. Vitamin Global and bee lore are not RS. That leaves only the Telegraph article, which is obvious churnalism. This is bollocks, but it's not notable bollocks. Guy (help!) 22:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guy is a particularly well-respected editor, active in WP:FRINGE matters. His comment makes it clear that there aren't enough acceptably-reliable sources to justify an article even about the dodgy promotion. If a strong consensus here nevertheless suggests Keep, the article should be a redirect to Apitherapy. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is to keep then it should be kept, not eliminated anyway and replaced with a redirect. And you deliberately canvassed someone you knew would agree with you on this, otherwise you would not have contacted him. Dream Focus 13:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I contacted him because I knew he'd give a sound opinion based on a wealth of experience. Actually I was rather hoping he'd endorse at least an improved version. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More, very obvious, promotional material and churnalism. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any reliable sources you disagree with must be "churnalism" apparently. Should we alter the general notability guidelines to say that reliable sources don't count if you don't like what they say? Dream Focus 14:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of sources for reliability is rather the point of this AfD, and in fact is basic to good editing here. And no, promotional material regurgitated does not thereby become respectable journalism. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Daily Express is generally unreliable per WP:RSP. The Jewish Post of New York item linked to just above recycles a claim from the Daily Express and says, The Jewish Post staff does not have the proper scientific nor medical background to critically evaluate this product. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources exist, but even the best of them do not rise to the level of quality necessary for medical topics, and so we have no material to build an article upon. XOR'easter (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - we do not publish original research, nor run of the mill health supplements. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable organisation. Number 57 11:52, 18 July 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Life_Mel_Honey&oldid=968302056"