Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transfersome

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 Keep.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  15:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transfersome

This article was deleted through the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion process, and then undeleted on my request. I think this article has potential, and wanted to bring it here to see if people agree or disagree on whether it should be kept. Some of the issues and article history have already been discussed here. I will summarise in a series of comments below. Carcharoth 11:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Original creation - Article originally created following a request at "Articles for creation", as shown here. Article created by KickahaOta on 12 July 2006. Carcharoth 13:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Deletion proposed - Proposed deletion template added on 13 July 2006. Original comment when the proposed deletion template was added was "Advertising for a company's non-notable product. Google search for "Transfersome" turns up only some 900 results, a lot of which seem to be solely understandible by the Medical community, or are in German." This was added by Green451 with an edit summary marked as "minor" (in actual fact, prods should not be marked as minor edits). The article was deleted on 18 July 2006 by Kungfuadam. Carcharoth 13:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Undeletion proposed - My original comment on this, on 23 August 2006, when deciding to ask for the article to be undeleted was "Well, I found a current medical trial involving the product. I'm not sure what the guidelines are on medical products still being tested (I know some drugs being trialled have articles), but the actual science behind it seems interesting." Hiding was kind enough to undelete the article for me on 23 August 2006, and I then nominated it for a deletion discussion the same day. Carcharoth 13:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Other - See the article history for any further changes made to the article. As of time of writing, some minor cleaning up has taken place. Carcharoth 13:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• comment It took me until the second paragraph before I had the foggiest idea what the heck this was. If its to be kept it needs serious rewriting and explanation.--Crossmr 13:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it more understandable now? Carcharoth 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - Per reason of original prod- "Advertising for a company's non-notable product. Google search for "Transfersome" turns up only some 900 results, a lot of which seem to be solely understandible by the Medical community, or are in German." --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 14:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) The 'understandable' comment is hopefully being addressed. (2) How does the results being in German affect this debate? (3) Would you be happier if the article focused on the science, rather than the product? Carcharoth 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Original PRODder comment - as the person who originally PRODded this way back when, I had no idea this would come back and cause a debate like this. I should mention that marking the ProD as minor was an accident, and I apologize for that. As for the matter of this article, I still cannot make any sense of it, and as such, I don't believe I should vote on the matter. If the article is kept, some *serious* rewriting must be done to make it understandable to the "Average Joe". Green451 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it more understandable now? Carcharoth 17:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - it appears to have quite a bit of publications in medical journals. I don't see the article as spam, but what I do see is an article in serious need of attention from an expert, but that is not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - from what I can make out, it is a form of medical nanotechnology used to deliver drugs across the skin by a sort of active transport mechanism. It might well be obscure, and it might well end up as a failed technology, but I think it is worth giving this one a chance. A fair bit of cleaning up, tidying of references, and wikifying has taken place, but it still needs a rewrite for readability, and it should focus on the science, not the company that developed it or even the name they've come up with for this technology. Carcharoth 16:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. A few successful trials of this formulation have been reported in reputable English-language medical journals, independent of company publicity. Novel delivery methods for drugs is an important topic in drug discovery, and many will be proprietory. Espresso Addict 20:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep interesting technology, no matter if it is proprietory or not. --WS 15:26, 24 August 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.