Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide

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. Almost speedy-deletable as G10, pages that disparage the subject. A very small amount is sourced, but the overwhelming amount is not, and therefore amounts to Original Research. If any of this were to be added to another article, it would not be admissible either, except to the extent there were actual good references. I am not evaluating whether or not the criticisms are correct--we do not do that. It would be a violation of NPOV. DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide[edit]

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

Reads like an ad and is a hostile fork of sodium chlorite, sole editor is named after a related commercial product. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(the following is copied from the talk page)

The creator and (so far) only editor of this article is named DiOxiCare, which is coincidentally a commercial product (http://www.frontierpharm.com/dioxicare-system.php). The article reads like an ad, and doesn't link to anything, not even Sodium chlorite or Chlorine dioxide. I'm going to go look up how to sponsor a page for deletion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylan Flaherty (talk • contribs)

Delete this definitely reads like an ad. This is even more convincing when I see the commercial product username.—Chris!_c/t 18:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom.--Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(The following is copied from the Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide Discussion Page)

The subject of Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide needs to be discussed because of the widespread confusion of its meaning. I would welcome any comment on my critique of Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide.

The essay was carefully written and the subject investigated first.

The initial criticisms made, however, were not thoughtful and were unconvincing. In no case was the science or chemistry mentioned or discussed. None of the all too brief comments were made by dentists, biologists, chemists or those in the dentistry fields. I would have at least expected the manufacturers of stabilized chlorine dioxide to have a say!

We learn in philosophy that it is difficult to prove a negative. The words, advertising, marketing and strategy of the purveyors of stabilized chlorine dioxide are underhanded and misleading, or outright false. How does one easily untangle this knot of sophistry. I challenge anyone to follow the titles and references of the literature given by these manufacturers.

I have no problem with the salt, sodium chlorite. The difficulty starts with how the term is described and used in scientific journals and advertising. If someone says they can cure cancer with sodium chlorite, I have no fault with the sodium chlorite.

The user name under which this article was submitted will no longer be used.

Howard Alliger, Howard841 (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Howard841[reply]

Comment I'm not sure I understand the comments above that this article reads like an advertisement. If anything, the article reads like a diatribe against the nomenclature "Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide". The author has gone to great pains to discuss why the nomenclature might be misleading. However, since he has pointed out (correctly or not -- I'm no chemist) that Stabilized Chlorine Dioxide is really sodium chlorite, I recommend a redirect to that page, with perhaps some editing of the target page to indicate the dual nomenclature and the use of sodium chlorite in mouthwash and toothpaste, not just as a bleaching agent in the paper manufacturing industry. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response - I said it read like an ad because it was repeating the marketing spiel of a product whose name matches that of the editor. Please click on the link I posted so you can see for yourself. Unless the author adequately explains their relationship with this product, we must presume a significant conflict of interest. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the link you provided, and yes, there is similarity between the text in that link and the text in this Wikipedia article. However, I don't believe either sets of text are "overtly promotional". And even though the original author's name matches the name of the company, that (while problematic in itself for violating WP:ORGNAME) does not automatically imply that this article is promotional (please assume good faith). I presume this user is simply quite knowledgeable about this compound and has chosen to share his or her knowledge. The article does not promote DioxiCare's product, nor even mention it by name or by reference. And it disparages the use of the term "stabilized chlorine dioxide" as misleading. I really can't see the argument that this article is promotional in any way, shape or form. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:38, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator should direct his remarks to the science, chemistry and history of stabilized chorine dioxide and not to the person writing the article or any relationship he might have. I am acting in good faith as a scientist and chemist and in no way talk about my own products.

Howard841 (talk) 20:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Howard Alliger, Howard841[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.