Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genomeceutical (second nomination)

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 delete. Flowerparty■ 23:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genomeceutical

Does not belong on Wikipedia: newly coined word that lacks importance. Appears to be in use by only one person. The article has remained unedited for six months with a "lacks importance" tag and is linked to by one page (a list). The content is not verifiable. The example of glucosamine does not make sense as it was developed 30 years ago and is sold as a pharmaceutical in Europe. Prithason 07:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, neologism. Proto||type 10:44, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Only 293 hits from Google. Gflores ^Talk 14:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The article might have been created purely to promote a naturopathic treatment for autism. And the term might be a neologism coined by commercial interests. BUT: (1) Previous failed AfD vote is here Articles_for_deletion/Genomeceutical. And there is a scholarly reference here [1] with references of its own, so the term appears to be in use by the academic community. The article may be of inferior quality, but I don't think that's a reason to delete. Slowmover 20:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • The term does not appear to be in use by any academic community. The reference cited above is to an article written by an undergraduate student, and cites a paper by Mark Brudnak in a journal called "Medical Hypotheses"; he appears to have coined the word and is the only user of the word that I could find in journal articles. Outside of the academic community, a few pages cite him and his definition, but not many (Google test results above). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prithason (talk • contribs)
    • Fair enough. Not changing my vote yet, though. Slowmover 01:58, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Delete. I'm changing my vote on the basis of the information from Thatcher131 below. Slowmover 19:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Also note the previous AfD had only 2 comments plus the nom, one of which was from a banned sock with a history of editing autism articles.Thatcher131 19:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The term is found in Medline/Pubmed only in articles written by Mark Brudnak, VP of MAK Wood, a manufacturer of dietary supplements. The only use in the medical literature (by Brudnak) is towards the benefits of creatine, and there are no uses of the term as it relates to autism. Removing the unsourced material would leave a stub defining a neologism; the term itself is probably worthless as a medical term as "naturally occurring compounds, which are able to affect gene expression" applies to thousands of drugs from aspirin to zeomycin. If the term becomes generally accepted a new article could be created. Thatcher131 19:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Moe ε 02:20, 1 April 2006 (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.