Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sisi syndrome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -Docg 23:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Sisi syndrome
A weird one, this. Lots of ghits on this story, but all seem to trace back to abstracts from/reviews of a single German-language book, Die Krankheitserfinder: Wie wir zu Patienten gemacht werden ("Diseasemakers: How we have all become patients") by Jörg Blech, and a single subscription-only German-language paper referenced in the article. As this article in its current form is an accusation of criminal conspiracy levelled against a major international corporation, I'm not certain we should have this page unless it can be considerably better sourced. However, since my German is roughly at the "three beers please" level there may well be some more legitimate sources for this that I've missed — iridescenti (talk to me!) 10:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete[1], [2], [3], [4]. This is everything that I could find about this topic. The first source from BMJ discusses the Sisi syndrome for
only a couple of sentencesa couple of paragraphs. The last three sources are all abstracts or translations of abstracts. From what I gather, a pharmaceutical company created this syndrome out of thin air and then tried to sell the medicine to treat it. It was all a hoax in the end. Perhaps this garnered more attention internationally. I would have expected more substantial coverage of such an unethical event. My conclusion is that the company and the product never gained much recognition which probably diminished the backlash. Due to the lack of coverage in reliable sources, I think this article should be deleted as a non notable event / disease / hoax. --Cyrus Andiron 12:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC) - Keep The BMJ article explains the matter. It discusses it for more than a couple of sentences--its a long paragraph making up about half of the review for the German language book. Solid RSs are present: BMJ + New Scientist. I will add the refs and quotes that Andiron found. He reaches a different conclusion, but I think it's clearly notable. As for some objections, BLP applies only to individuals, the source is very sound and supported by others, subscription-only sites are not discriminated against, a German book is as good as an English one if we know its contents, and the review provides it in some detail. I urge iridescenti to look at the additional references. DGG 01:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm going to stick with delete at this stage - of Cyrus's sources, the BMJ & New Scientist ones are reviews of the book, and make it clear when talking about this syndrome that they're talking about an allegation in the book rather than their own belief, while the second two appear both to be abstracts of the same paper (on which the book was based), hosted on two different sites, making all five sources currently cited de facto citations to a single paper albeit by five different routes. Yes, WP:BLP doesn't apply to a company, but WP:LIBEL does; unless someone can find a reliable source that this happened, than this article if kept needs to be heavily laced with "allegedly". If it did happen I've no problem with it being kept - either as a description of the illness, if we believe the company's line, or about the fabricated results if we believe Blech. As Cyrus & I both don't quite say above, if a major multinational like GSK were actually to have engaged in this kind of fraud, or even to have had credible allegations made against it, I'd expect there to be a lot more coverage than there actually is - where's the coverage in the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Pharmaceutical Business Review etc, the lawsuits from people mis-diagnosed, the action by the German health service over misprescribed drugs etc? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'll grant you the couple of paragraphs that discuss "Sisi syndrome" in the BMJ paper. That constitutes the only concrete evidence that this hoax ever happened, apart from simple abstracts that apparently all source the same article. As pointed out above, surely there would have been more scholarly articles condemning GSK. After all, they are the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world (after Pfizer). I cannot imagine how the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world could simply avoid the fallout from something like this. Their competitors should have been chomping at the bit to exploit the fact that GSK made up a syndrome and then sold the prescription to treat it. Finally, I'm curious as to why this is not mentioned in the main article about GSK. Sure, Wikipedia isn't as reliable as we'd like it to be, but one would hope that an event like this would merit inclusion into the company article. I'll also stick with delete pending verification from some other sources. --Cyrus Andiron 12:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment I'm going to stick with delete at this stage - of Cyrus's sources, the BMJ & New Scientist ones are reviews of the book, and make it clear when talking about this syndrome that they're talking about an allegation in the book rather than their own belief, while the second two appear both to be abstracts of the same paper (on which the book was based), hosted on two different sites, making all five sources currently cited de facto citations to a single paper albeit by five different routes. Yes, WP:BLP doesn't apply to a company, but WP:LIBEL does; unless someone can find a reliable source that this happened, than this article if kept needs to be heavily laced with "allegedly". If it did happen I've no problem with it being kept - either as a description of the illness, if we believe the company's line, or about the fabricated results if we believe Blech. As Cyrus & I both don't quite say above, if a major multinational like GSK were actually to have engaged in this kind of fraud, or even to have had credible allegations made against it, I'd expect there to be a lot more coverage than there actually is - where's the coverage in the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Pharmaceutical Business Review etc, the lawsuits from people mis-diagnosed, the action by the German health service over misprescribed drugs etc? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 09:02, 22 May 2007 (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.
