Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Milagro de la selva

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. --MCB (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milagro de la selva

Milagro de la selva (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

A fair bit of google searching shows that "Milagro de la selva" only shows up on snake-oil-ish pages. I can not find any reliable (NIH, FDA, AMA, etc) type references for it. Do we try and improve it in the absence of legitimate references or do we delete it because the current page effectively is advertising the snake oil? (Not a rhetorical question, I actually don't know.) —Noah 06:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Free advertising. GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:SPAM and WP:V. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I think that "Milagro de la selva" is a suitable topic for an article, given its comparatively wide presence via Google. To have an article, though, it seems to be necessary to know what it is. Is this an herbal extract, or just dried leaves of some sort? What is its botanical origin? What studies have been published relating to the material? This promotional article fails to provide any of the necessary details. I looked around a little, but found nothing useful to fill these large gaps. Tim Ross 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep it: Because someone refers to a blend of herbs that he does not know about and calls it snake oil is reason enough to cancel that viewpoint. 25% of all pharmacueticals are derived from plants in the rainforest. Milagro de la Selva is a viable blend of two exotic plants that grow in their natural habitat, the subtropical rain forest of Guatemala: Smilax Dominigensis, and Tacoma Stans.

Milagro de la Selva was extensively studied by the Peoples University of The Americas in Puerto Rico according to the guidelines of the A.O.A.C. (Association of Official Analytical Chemists International) and the World Health Organization (W.H.O.) to determine its efficacy and toxicity levels. It was found "...very effective for the treatment of Type 2 Diabetes" and was also found to be completely nontoxic. Dr. Peter R. Rothschild MD, Ph.D., Th.D., FRSH, in a three month, 70 member, double blind and placebo study finished in June of 2003 reported that "...the tea is a valuable alternative in the treatment of diabetes". He also noted that the tea reduces cholesterol and high blood pressure and benefits vascular problems of the retina. Dr. Rothschild received his degree in medicine in Vienna, Austria, was postulated for the Nobel Prize in physics by the Royal Academy of Sciences, and at present is the dean of Peoples University of The Americas in Puerto Rico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickleyparker (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My snake oil comment referred to the types of web pages you get when you google for the herb. I'm happy to be proven wrong. Do you have any web links for the studies you just mentioned? Do you have any formal citations of peer reviewed journals? Or, are you just copy and pasting from the same web sites that are in question?—Noah 08:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, here is a link to the "University" mentioned above. Snake oil. —Noah 08:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I only came up with two other studies. One at The University of Mexico and the other at The Houston Medical Center (this one was small). However I do agree the link you sent me to was very bizarre, but that Dr was Dr Rothschild who after further review was quite a guy. He had 5 degrees, 1 each from University of Vienna, University of Rome (JFK Ctr), Sussex and The University of the Caribbean as well as that odd school you pointed out. I agree the article posted has some claims that are not subsantiated by peer reviews such as New England Journal of Medicine but that does not mean it is not a real thing.

I would like to see the article stay and will make changes to it so it just states what the product is and you can review that, Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickleyparker (talk • contribs) 18:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC) 

I move to close discussion and keep article with changes, The changes have been made to reflect the concerns mentioned above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brickleyparker (talk • contribs) 15:20, 18 January 2008 (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.