Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neprinol

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, as spam and copyright infringement. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Neprinol

Neprinol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable drug. While the article contains nearly a hundred references, none of these are actually to the drug. Rather, the references concern the conditions treated by the drug, as well as the ingredients of the drug. The only content on the page that directly relates to neprinol is infact unreferenced. Looking for reference myself, Neprinol is not mentioned in any significant scholarly publications that I could find, and while the number of ghits is very large (hundreds of thousands), all that I skimmed were blogs or sites selling the drug.Someguy1221 (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• It seems a waste to lose content that could improve our nattokinase and serrapeptase articles (q.v.) just because it has been written in a single article. Uncle G (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note: The above comment was refactored to keep from no recommendation by User:Hazyma. Novangelis (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• Delete The references in the article have been cherry-picked, so all ingredient sections need to be removed, in the current state they mislead the reader. The side effect section is pseudoscientific babble. Narayanese (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
• DeleteSpeedy delete as unnotable spam. A mix of notable ingredients does not make the mixture notable and the article makes no effort to describe the product as notable. It is not a drug, it is a dietary supplement, so implicit medical claims push this into the pure spam arena. Consider Recommend speedy deletion.Novangelis (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP . According to the article Neprinol is not a drug, but rather a dietary supplement. The American FDA does not have a process to regulate dietary supplements based upon their ingredients alone. The fact that the FDA does not regulate dietary supplements, does not make the product more or less notable. Health Canada (Canadian FDA) considers that the documented science behind the ingredients is enough to determine safety and efficacy. A brief of their policy can be found at:

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/pubs/hpfb-dgpsa/access-therapeutic_acces-therapeutique-eng.php#2.1 Neprinol was granted a federal therapeutic goods status or Natural Product Number NPN #152601 based upon the submission they received. This review takes into consideration safety and efficacy of each component to determine what health claims may be made for the product as a whole. This policy protects the integrity of natural ingredients from which no patent protections can be made. Given that current law does allow for the protection of intellectual property for natural ingredients; it is likely that there will be little interest for large double blind FDA approved studies. There is therefore little or no incentive to clinically investigate the product beyond its ingredients. The full S&E report can be found at http://www.neprinol.org/?page_id=239 . Therefore it can be assumed that the validity of the information and the federal policy of Health Canada’s HPFB should be argument to the contrary of Spam or non-notable products. Neprinol given its NPN status is legally prescribed by Canadian physicians as well as covered by their socialized medicine program. New therapeutic products can be sold in Canada once they have successfully passed a review process to assess their safety, efficacy and quality. Quality is determined by GMP and ISO “Good Manufacturing Process and International Standards Organizations”. Only goods manufactured in GMP approved facilities are eligible for NPN status. Responsibility for this review process rests with Health Canada's HPFB or Health Products and Food Branch. There is no evidence to conclude that the ingredients science is no longer valid or notable once the ingredients are combined and sold as a single product. I would also consider the Wiki policy for deletion point #10 If the article was recently created, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, an associated WikiProject, or on the article's talk page, and/or adding a cleanup tag, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. I would ask that you consider researching the elaborate Canadian NPN review process before expressing an urgency to delete neutrally fact based research. I would also ask that you consider positive feedback and careful editing that might strengthen the article. Calling the article spam without sighting any evidence to back up that point of view can be viewed as ignorance on the subject matter itself. --Hazyma (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please review the notability guideline. Everything you just said is irrelevant. If no studies have ever been done of this drug, and no significant, independent publications have ever discussed it, then it is not notable. A drug is not entitled to an article on Wikipedia simply because it exists, even if it has been identified as safe by a governmental agency. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Are you guys kidding? At least 50 percent of those 80 some-odd references are from academic sources that treat of Neprinol in significant detail. Academic sources are independent, reliable sources. I will put the {{rescue}} tag on this article because your arguments against are weak. Dcsm23 (talk) 15:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I am not kidding. I don't get to write an article about "My Mix CD" even though every song on it is notable and has a review in "Rolling Stone" and three other significant reviews as references. Reference counts do not establish notability if the references do not discuss the subject.Novangelis (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• The article differs a lot in its conclusions from [1]. Though perhaps the difference just comes from what sources are considered acceptable. Our article uses in vitro and mouse data, and non-blinded clinical trials, to justify medical claims. Compilation of sources like this are generally not favoured around here (WP:MEDRS), reviews in journals are preferred. Narayanese (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: Where are these so called Medical Claims? There are no medical claims tied directly to Neprinol. The article was not written to express Neprinol as a drug or other agent to mitigate disease. Dietary supplements are valued on their structure and function or ability to improve health as a whole. The same might be said for science written on the components of a healthy diet. Again this is not a drug, and therefore should not be held to the same scrutiny as a drug. A drug is likely made form ingredients that were man-made or developed in a lab. Therefore they have no basis to reference its components. A complete study Phase1- Phase4 must be done to evaluate safety first and efficacy second. Of course the process itself is severely flawed. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that Vioxx may have contributed to 27,785 heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths between 1999 and 2003. Your mixed tape argument fails to discuss whether you sold the mix to Time Life Books, and it became collectible. Removing the inclusion of notable components adds no more notability to the article itself and on the contrary actually make the article confusing to the reader. Articles such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wobenzym , only discuss the product exists how does this article carry more weight than the one in question? Is it because it survived the deletion process? --Hazyma (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reply: The burden of proof would be upon me to show that Time-Life bought it. If it became collectible, there would be reliable third party sources discussing it. The other article you cite has no apparent history of being in an article for deletion review, nor is the article we are discussing here. That article does have two references, which in addition to referring to the specific preparation, refute a wholly dishonest medical claim (bold text for emphasis is discouraged) in the article we are discussing: "No serious or adverse side effects or hospitalizations have been reported from taking systemic enzymes." This shows that the references are cherry-picked and that the text is promotional (spam).Novangelis (talk) 19:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
• Reply: I agree that section lacked proper referencing and as mentioned above safety references have been for animal studies. That section has been edited and cited.--Hazyma (talk) 20:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Someguy1221 I would urge you to familiarize yourself with the differences between a dietary supplement and a drug. I would also ask you to educate yourself about the differences between structure and function claims and disease claims. I would also ask you to cite a single instance where Neprinol is discussed as a drug and where it claims to mitigate disease. If you can find that I will find your study. There are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that don't have clinical studies because they simply don't warrant them. I don't see any studies on Coca-Cola. Its probably because Coca-Cola doesn't say its a brain tonic anymore. Would the inclusion of medical studies on the effects of sugar make Coca-Cola a drug?--Hazyma (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Delete For a dietary supplement, there seem to be quite a few diseases/conditions mentioned in the article. I think I understand the difference between a drug and a dietary supplement - a drug is officially licensed for treating conditions, while a DS cannot claim to treat them but in many cases is advertised in such a way as to lead people to believe that it can. There are undoubtedly non-notable drugs, and notable 'dietary supplements'. This isn't a drug, and doesn't appear notable outside blogs, where it is often discussed in terms of 'curing' which may not be the fault of the manufacturers.. Coca-Cola has quite a notability outside its origins as a 'tonic', and anyway what another article is doesn't affect this one. We aren't discussing whether the stuff works or not - we are discussing notability and promotional material. It doesn't look over-promotional to me, but does make a difficult read. I would comment that a technical breakdown such as this is more often associated with officinal (in the old sense as in 'officinalis' found in plant names) preparations than with foods and herbal tonics. Peridon (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as copyright violation and spam, as demonstrated by Novangelis below. (I'm not sure about 'plagiarisn' being a Wikipedia ground for deletion, but copyright violation definitely is. And this is... Peridon (talk) 10:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: It always felt promotional to me and now I have the evidence. I was looking at the article again. I noticed an odd typo in the section on Rutin, that was not a proper "citation needed" flag: "In human clinical researchfact, rutin was shown...". I dropped "human clinical researchfact" into a search engine and found two hits, the article and this write-up from the manufacturer. As a result of discovering the source of the text for the bulk of the article, I have modified my recommendation to speedy delete as spam, plagiarism, and possible copyright violation.Novangelis (talk) 02:41, 27 July 2010 (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.