Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fibroceutical

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 per consensus. A clear case of WP:NEO that should have been speedy deleted. @pple complain 20:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fibroceutical

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Rambling article presenting an utter neologism. Tempting to tag it for speedy deletion: A10 fork of fibromyalgia. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. — Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 12:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also a non-notable neologism, invented for promotional purposes: Fibroceutical, a term which combines the words “fibromyalgia” and “nutraceutical”. Actually, only one of those was a word to begin with. Essentially an article about treating fibromyalgia with nutritional supplements; sounds like advertising moonshine to me. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, consider speedy. No novel content other than a non-notable neologism; mostly a redundant content fork on fibromyalgia.Novangelis (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I get about 50 Google hits for "Fibroceutical" and 300k for "Fiberceutic" which is a haircare product by L'Oreal. This article has been aptly assessed by RHaworth, Smerdis and Novangelis as non-notable advertising. The references provided do not deal with the term fibroceutical but with fibromyalgia, which has its own article. De728631 (talk) 18:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to address the concern that this word is simply a combination of existing terms. Often in the medical field it is necesary to utilize a combination of concepts or terms to adequately describe a disease, condition, or treatment method. It was a mere 9 years ago that a group of physicians and medical experts sat around a table to discuss how they could articulate the benefits of a new therapy to aid men that suffered from impotance. It was decided to combine the words erectile and dysfunction to describe this treatable condition. Later the term was shortened even further by pharmaceutical representatives and physicians to ED. I searched this site and found substantial information on Erectile Dysfunction. We are fortunate that individuals without the medical background or scientific knowledge did not dimiss this term as simply a neologism that combines two words that have valid stand alone meanings but when combined create a useful term for discussing a valid medical condition. In a similar fashion, I urge the experts that are considering the inclusion of this term to understand that the term Fibroceutical is not merely a combination of Fibromyalgia and nutraceutical. Fibroceutical is a medical term that is being utilized by those engaged in research and study in the fields of treating the symptoms associated with Fybromyalgia Syndrome. Additionally, the implication that this term is marketing spam or advertising moonshine appears to be a personal attack on the author with no validation. As I read the article there was no mention of a sales pitch or a product. If the experts that are deciding on the inclusion of Fibroceutical in Wikipedia take the time to read the medical articles that are referenced, they will easily identify them as non biased, they are not linked or related to any promotion of products. Rather, these articles discuss the results of years of clinical research on various doses of non pharmacological agents in the treatment of various symptoms associated with the symptoms of Fibromyalgia. I think most reasonable people would agree that if a physician posted on the osteoporosis page that it was recommended for women to consume 1200 mg a day of calcium that they did not have a hidden agenda to increase the sale of a natural occurring ingredient like calcium that can be found in a wide variety of foods and nutritional supplements. The rational conclusion for any reader even vaguely familar with the symptoms and degeneration of bone mass associated with osteoporosis, would understand that the physician is simply stating that the widely accepted medical community agrees that based on years of clinical and empirical research from vast sources, 1200 mg is a therapeutic dose of calcium for those women suffering from osteoporosis. That is the intent of the term Fibroceutical, to describe particular doses of natural ingredients that have been studied and how these doses affect various symptoms associated with Fybromyalgia Syndrome.PharmaMBA (talk) 03:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)PharmaMBA user blocked as sock of article author - JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for similar reasons - non-notable neologism, but mostly because I believe it to be a wikispam article mostly like commissioned by an interested company. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. JohnCD (talk) 11:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I have read the comments regarding the wikipedia submission for the word fibroceutical and would like to provide my own comments to the discussion board. As was stated previously by another commenter, the write-up in question does not make any suggestion of advertisement for any product and as such, appears to be benign regarding any concern regarding “wikispam” as another previous commenter had made. The current write-up appears to be a non-biased submission in my opinion. I am a practicing physician and have been in private practice post residency training for greater than 15 years. I graduated from medical school over 20 years ago and there are certainly many new clinical diagnoses and diagnostic testing equipment available today that were not known when I graduated at that time. I have examined and treated many patients over this period of time who currently suffer from a myriad of symptoms that they believe are related to the diagnosis of Fibromyalga. For many years the medical community questioned the existence of the diagnosis of Fibromyalgia but over time, the American College of Neurology has determined that this diagnosis is a real medical condition and should be treated as such. The American College of Neurology has even determined the appropriate method for which the diagnosis should be made based on clinical and historical information. Many of these patients are presently being treated with both prescription (pharmacological) medications as well as natural (neutracuetical) agents. Many of these patients have seen significant benefits with the use of both such products. I am concerned that these patients, many of whom have seen a multitude of medical professionals over a period of many years before the diagnosis of Fibromyalgia is made, will choose inappropriate methods to help with their condition. As such, they are desperate for information and help. I believe that there is a significant need for additional research regarding appropriate treatment for these patients and that the nomenclature of a word such as fibroceutical would be beneficial for future research concerning natural agents (nutraceutical) as well as pharmaceutical products. There are many examples of natural products which have shown significant benefit to patients. The medical complaint of joint pain is a classic example with millions of patients currently taking glucosamine chondroitin with significant benefit and with scientific research available to confirm this. Certainly the pharmaceutical industry provides medications designed and formulated to address specific disease states and medical complaints. I believe that it is only appropriate that nutraceutical agents should also be formulated to assist patients with specific medical conditions and complaints. I would like to suggest that the word fibroceutical is a legitimate new word, not simply a “neologism” as mentioned above, and should be included in the wikipedia glossary. DrGatsby1962 (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC) user blocked as sock of article author - JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that it is not Wikipedia's role to help in the introduction of new terms, however worthy or interesting. As an encyclopedia, it reports only on things that are already established, and the policies WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research are fundamental. Your arguments about the treatment of Fibromyalgia are irrelevant to this discussion, which is about whether the term "Fibroceuticals" is sufficiently established and widely enough used to be the subject of an encyclopedia article. Please read the policy on neologisms which includes: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term... Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." There is no evidence here even that the term is in use: Google scholar comes up blank, and the results of a Google search seem to be mostly about the domain names fibroceutical.com and fibroceuticals.com. JohnCD (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT - Given this edit by the article's author - a housekeeping edit on the user page of PharmaMBA (talk · contribs), can I suggest that PharmaMBA's comments are disregarded by the closing admin? If you look at the timings - PharmaMBA's account was created just a few hours after the article was originally PROD'ed and his first action was to remove the PROD notice. Then today the creating editor pops up and does some edits to PharmaMBA's user page. I can take it to WP:SPI if needed, but this is a minor-league attempt at socking it is so transparent that nobody will be fooled by it. --Biker Biker (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having read and re-read the contributions by both DrGatsby1962 and PharmaMBA I decided that a sock puppet investigation was called for. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lane89mr. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI has confirmed that the article author Lane89mr, DrGatsby1962 and PharmaMBA are indeed the same person. The latter two have been blocked indefinitely. Speedy delete anyone? --Biker Biker (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While it is might be worth invoking the WP:Snowball clause now that all opposition has been shown to be socks of the article's creator, I see no need for a speedy this many days into an AfD. Hopefully there will be no further disruption.Novangelis (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Thanks. --Biker Biker (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Socks blocked: I would agree with a SNOW close, but as I have commented I will leave another admin to consider it. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 8 August 2011 (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.