Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protandim

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protandim

Delete - this product doesn't appear to be notable and the page seems meant to cover a single study. Irbisgreif (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I couldn't care less about the outcome of this Afd, some of the information probably shouldn't go to waste.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It already cites a news story by a major media group[1], and there are three journal articles at PubMed (PMID 19384424, PMID 19056485, PMID 16413416): it appears to meet the standard rules for notability quite easily. I'm not exactly happy that Wikipedia has an article about this product, but we don't hold AltMed stuff to a higher standard than any other product. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep If there are proper trials and journal articles, it's notable. (This is an encyclopaedia, not a medical textbook.)VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - If this article was not about a commercial product, I'd be very much on the Keep side, as it is, I wonder if much of this content shouldn't be moved to a page about the active ingredients. Unfortunately, I can't decypher the article enough to work that out. It should also be noted that there are other pages being set up by competing products, see SOD/CAT. --Deadly∀ssassin 00:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep I do not see what being a commercial product has to do with the notability. It is a reason to be careful to not use promotional language. I don't see how to move a complex preparation into articles on individual ingredients. BTW, I've been working on SOD/CAT, which is also notable but needs a good deal of editing. DGG (talk) 02:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per VsevolodKrolikov. Str8cash (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are multiple supporting papers on PubMed, and the article seems to meet all the inclusion criteria at WP:GNG. ---kilbad (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The intention of the article is not covering a single study. The single study just happens to be the most meaningful validation that is available at this time. Admittedly, this product needs further validation. However, it represents a meaningful, albeit, controversial new direction in antioxidant therapy. There is some reason to believe that further studies will be done. Results of the human study are also corroborated by a number of studies of animal and in vitro models. The conceptual basis of the product has context and precedence in the field of antioxidant therapy as described in peer-review medical and scientific literature. (Entropy7 (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2009 (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.