Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Gerovital

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 of the debate was - kept

[edit] Gerovital

Looks like an advertisement to me. Deadend. Orphan. Lots of hits on Google, mostly commercial, so possibly notable, but still POV. See: [1]. I'll retract my vote if someone expands this into a proper NPOV wikified article, but in its current form this article does not belong here. --Woggly 10:48, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) I promised to retract my vote if the article is improved to meet certain conditions, and I believe it now does. keep. (Food for thought - what do you think would have happened to this article had I listed it for Cleanup instead of Deletion?) --Woggly 09:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• • I don't think you'd find any lack of agreement that the cleanup process doesn't work well, Woggly, but abusing the process is not the way to fix that. Simply listing it on cleanup doubtless would not have had the desired effect, but perhaps alerting interested editors would. Have you tried to form a "cleanup crew" at the Village Pump? A group of editors might be willing to work on the cases that you find on RC patrol or wherever you turned this up. Okay, you did create interest but by abusing the deletion process, which is already under stress. If you feel that the cleanup policy should be changed, so that articles that were very much in need of it would be passed from cleanup to deletion in time, you could propose a new policy.Dr Zen 02:23, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • For the record, I often do list articles on cleanup, when I list an article on VfD I do so because I firmly believe that the article in its current state should not be on Wikipedia. Flaws can be corrected in time, harmful flaws should not be suffered to exist on Wikipedia. I would rather have a redlink than an article which consists of nothing more than advertisement, or which obviously spreads mistakes and/or misinformation that could possibly cause harm. Had I just thought it was badly written or poor on content, I would probably have marked it for cleanup instead. That said, I sense that we have a different perception of VfD. I don't think I would ever use the term "abuse of VfD", except in extreme cases, such as a troll listing articles that are very obviously keepers. There are two kinds of articles that I think should be listed on VfD: articles that will clearly reach a consensus for deletion, but for some reason don't meet the criteria for speedy delete; and articles that are inherently problematic, and should be debated - which I hold to be the case with Gerovital. My ultimate goal is not to have every article I list here deleted, but that every article I list here should be either deleted, or significantly improved, or that it should create a debate that will lead to the clarification of Wikipedia policy. I don't feel this to be abuse of VfD. --Woggly 08:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
      • Woggly, I want to be absolutely clear that I do not doubt that you acted in good faith. I am in no way suggesting that you were trolling. However, abuses can be committed with the best of motives. (And I used the word solely because you appeared to be suggesting that it had been a more effective means of cleaning it up than simply listing it on cleanup. I took your original listing to be entirely in good faith because from what I've seen you are an editor who acts entirely in good faith.) This article clearly should be kept. There is a consensus to do so and even you agree that it should be. If you think it has flaws there are methods to deal with them -- foremost among them to edit them out! Do you see how that would lead some to feel that perhaps this was not a valid candidate for deletion? Can you see that some might feel that the urge to have deleted what you personally feel is "harmful" is not necessarily something to be welcomed (although you should not read into that that I necessarily disagree with you). I urge you to consider the policy for deletion, which is quite clear that there are different solutions for different problems, and that VfD is for pages you very much feel should be deleted. RfC exists for the problems you have identified, so that even if you personally do not feel you can edit out the harmfulness, others might be willing. I understand what you are saying. I agree that it's useful to clarify policy. But I think you should have tried other means. I hope that our viewing this differently doesn't lead you to feel that I hold any animus against you. Quite the opposite. I thank you for explaining your position so cogently. I simply feel that this page should be reserved for hanging the guilty, rather than trying the innocent but ugly.Dr Zen 10:57, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Neutral; tending toward keep. The preparation is notable, but the current article does fall short, in most respects. Should be fixable, given interest. -- Cimon 11:03, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
• Procaine? Procaine is nutritional? I thought it was a narcotic analgesic. I'm going to vote on the article rather than the topic, here. Delete unless cleaned up by the end of VfD. Geogre 15:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• delete. Another snake oil ad. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 16:57, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC) Everyking has convinced me. This may be one snake-oil ad that we should document. It has been around for decades, resisted the efforts of the US FDA to keep it out of the USA, outlived its creator by well over a decade, and has fooled the likes of Sylverster Stallone and Salvador Dali (not too difficult, I admit--but prominent names). This should be documented under hoaxes or something similar. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 00:50, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Eastern european snake oil ad - Wyss 18:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm assuming this is a commercial neologism. Google isn't a great deal of help with such products. But I preach caution: Our own POVs on the effectiveness of the product shouldn't influence this decision. The question for now is whether this article contains any useful content, and if not whether we can reasonably expect it to arrive fairly quickly. I think that's a closer call then the above indicates. Andrewa 18:46, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Comment: I agree with you, Andrewa, but we also have to watch out for advertising, even if it is the next tamoxifan. All I could do was see what it said, and it was very odd. Unless there is some other "procaine," or I am very, very much mistaken, the article was talking about a drug well known for euphoria being used as a panacea. Given that the duty of the article is to establish itself as verifiable and notable (and legal), I voted on presumption and what internal evidence suggested. I did find a link heavily pushing Gerovital as the cure for death (www.gh3.co.uk), but see also procaine on Wikipedia or this. Geogre 21:17, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, it's a kind of medicine; why shouldn't we have articles on different kinds of medicine? That's the kind of thing people would want to know, that could be very important to them. Everyking 20:26, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • We also have to avoid advertising and being hijacked by spammers and quacks who invent a new, impossible medicine, and hope to perpetuate their claims through our page rank boosting. This stuff is claiming to cure aging. Geogre 21:18, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • All the more reason we ought to have a fair NPOV article on the stuff, don't you think? So people will have a proper source to rely on? Everyking 21:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • And it isn't new. Apparently it's been around for a good 50 years or so. Everyking 21:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. Gamaliel 21:21, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep based on Dpbsmith's research. Gamaliel 02:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. I smell a hoax. FWIW, procaine, unless there's some 'nother "procaine," is a dental anaesthetic, not a narcotic; it's the same stuff as novocaine. It does not produce euphoria, and is usually not taken as a pill. -- Smerdis of Tlön 21:38, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, it does produce euphoria when taken in excess. It has been used as a street drug, and one link I found was, in fact, on procaine vs. cocaine in addictive abuse. (Lidocaine can also give euphoria. Alas, I know this by experience as prescribed migraine cure.) Geogre 05:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: Just read Woggly's ext. link at the top. The stuff is obviously quite notable. Yes, maybe a hoax, but what difference does that make? Everyking 21:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • What????? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:56, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • A notable medicine that works is just as good as a notable hoax, as far as inclusion goes... Everyking 00:06, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Comment It might be semi-notable as quack medicine. There are no recent New York Times articles, but:
  • the obituary of Ana Aslan, Rumanian Specialist On the Aging Process, Dies in 90's By GLENN FOWLER New York Times (1857-Current file); May 29, 1988; pg. 28: "[In Rumania] in 1994 the government-sponsored Parhon Institute of Geriatrics was established in Bucharest, and Dr. Alsan soon became it dominant figure. The institute developed in to a magnet for wealthy and prominent people... Among the famous people who took her treatments were—or were widely reported to have done so—were Gen. Charles de Gaulle, Nikita S. Khrushchev, Indira Gandhi, Marshal Tito, and Chancellor Konrad Adenauer of West Germany, as well as the actresses Lillian Gish and Marlene Dietrich. The vast majority of scientists outside Rumania dismissed Gerovital as another false fountain of youth. The medical establishment in Britain and the United States, including the National Institutes of Health and the American Medical Assocation, found it had no merit, and the Food and Drug Association refused to sanction it." I think what we have here is a formerly notable quack medicine whose reputation mostly did not survive that of its promoter, but which still being manufactured and sold. More if I find more. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC) Nope, it's not a former quack medicine, more's the pity. I've seen a slew of 1980s references to the FDA's not allowing it in interstate commerce and cracking down on people trying to sell it, but can't figure out whether that's still true or whether the "nutritional supplements" loophole opened the floodgates. Any further notes I make will go in Talk:Gerovital. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 00:08, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  • How could anyone vote to delete this? Read:

"For decades, thousands of people looking for "the fountain of youth" flocked to the spa-like clinic of Dr. Ana Aslan in Bucharest, Romania. They came to the spa not only to rest and relax but to get their supply of Gerovital H3 (GH3), a drug popularized by Aslan in the 1950s.

Although Aslan is no longer with us, her legacy remains. Gerovital is still the main attraction of several spas in Romania and the promises are plenty. ...

These claims have been swallowed by the rich and the famous. Among Aslan’s many clients were John F. Kennedy, Marlene Dietrich, Kirk Douglas, and Salvador Dali. Sylvester Stallone also reportedly takes GH3 shots to remain sexy." [2]

Everyking 00:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Everyking is right. Incorrectly listed here instead of cleanup. Keep.Dr Zen 02:15, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable snake oil. Mikkalai 06:18, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep it. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 08:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and gives a reasonable NPOV assessment of the claims. We also serve to debunk. [[User:GeorgeStepanek|GeorgeStepanek\^talk ]] 01:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep but do rigorous cleanup. Some serious research has been done on this drug (which is not a supplement) but mainly in the 1980s and with little evidence that it actually works. The article will have to mention the double-blind trials that have been performed, such as (PMID 6362368), and subsequent failures to sustain proof of its efficacy. JFW | T@lk 09:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable. Wikipedia mustn't stoop to only including things that are ethical. With the number of google hits, it seems like that a NPOV reference would be valuable. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 20:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, folks, I've been cleaning (more like "writing from scratch") and NPOV-ing but could sure use some help. I'd particularly like help pinning down these points: 1) I'm 90% sure that it is still basically an illegal drug in the U.S., i.e. the FDA considers it to be illegal in interstate commerce, but not 100%. I'm unclear on how the Web-based suppliers operate; do they actually have a loophole or does the FDA just not care because it's a relatively minor enforcement problem? FDA has confirmed, it's illegal and under an import ban. 2) How does the 1994 DSHEA and other laws distinguish between a nutritional supplement versus a drug? As JFW | T@lk indicates, I'm sure the websites that call it a "vitamin" and a "supplement" are blowing smoke, but can this be stated in an NPOV way? 3) Safety. It appears to this layperson that the stuff in the dosages used is probably not very dangerous; it looks as if the dosages are way lower than when used as a local anesthetic; but it does not sound as if it utterly innocuous, either. Again, JFW | T@lk told me that it can cause arrhythmias, and I've read elsewhere that procaine is a common adulterant in illegal drugs and is considered to be a factor in overdose deaths, possibly including that of Kurt Cobain. That latter remark is not for the article, of course, as it's speculative. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 11:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep and give this article opportunity for organic growth. Its obviously going somewhere. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 19:30, 8 Dec 2004 (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.