Talk:Polyglycoplex

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Now hangon

This maanaged to pass the editorial boards of two newspapers as newsworthy on the subject of research in diet, & you think it's "blatant advertising"? AFAIK, the only "advertising" is saying where it's available, & that only to clarify it's not still a lab product or prescription-only. What, does it have to make The New York Times before it's good enough? Yeh, I'm biased. Geez. I suggest if it offers a potential means of reducing gross obesity, which is a health risk, that alone justified leaving it in. Trekphiler (talk) 01:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Not notable? It first appeared in the Calgary paper, which isn't some small-town outfit with a circulation 200; it serves a city of around 500K. If they thought it was notable enough, & if a second paper, the local here (the Star-Phoenix) picked it up (for a city pop 200K), thought it was, I would have thought that would do it. Me? I thought a new way of reducing obesity without evident health hazard was of sufficient interest people might just want to know. And given the number of pages about obscure stuff that have slim chance of even making a major newspaper, I'd say it passes. Of course, I am a bit biased, having created the page, but I'd never have bothered if I didn't think there were people like me who might find it interesting, or valuable. Trekphiler (talk) 03:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

On reflection, & examining the Google results, this has a funny smell. I'm disinclined to defend what begins to look like a planted story masquerading as news. If there's real evidence this stuff is gennie, I still say, "leave it in"; otherwise, push it out the airlock. Trekphiler (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)