Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:24, 12 July 2020

Life Mel Honey

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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 Misplaced Pages does a disservice to readers. Jontesta (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

• Keep there is some RS available and some reason to believe that the subject is notable. Lightburst (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
• 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)

@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)

• Comment: Locating reliable sources regarding Life-Mel.
• U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health
• Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia by Special Honey Intake Published in Medical Oncology, vol. 23, no. 4, 549-552, 2006
• Book which cites the above study. Diabetes Without Drugs
• MDPI: Honey and Cancer: Current Status and Future Directions
• Israel 21C
• Jewish Post of New York

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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    20:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• Delete - and advertisement for a non-notable company. Graham Beards (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
• 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
• 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)

• AfD debates (Science and technology)
• AfD debates