Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cgk733

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The result was withdrawn. I have renamed and rewritten the article according to the good suggestions below. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cgk733

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log

)

This article describes scientific work that has been revealed to be fraudulent. The paper this article is based upon, titled "Small molecule–based reversible reprogramming of cellular lifespan", has been retracted in full by the authors. The authors were suspended from the academic institution where they worked. The only accurate statement currently in the article is "the entire work behind the discovery of this compound was called into question and then found to be falsified." Perhaps there is an article to be written about the fraud itself, but this article about the non-existent chemical compound "Cgk733" should be deleted.-- Ed (Edgar181) 13:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Is this a notable hoax? If so, keep and re-write. If not, delete. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fraud was mentioned at a few online science news sites and blogs, but that's about it as far as I can tell, so it probably doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of notable. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Stub and keep. Regardless of how much attention this got, it looks like a notable hoax. Remarkable claims about this alleged compound are published in an academic source, and then retracted entirely. That to me sounds like significant coverage in reliable sources, so this should keep even if not much attention were paid to the hoax. Google News reveals a host of sources, many of which are apparently in Korean or Chinese, about the substance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and re-write Since the compound was published in reliable, third party sources THEN found to be false, the hoax is notable and needs to be covered. I suggest moving to "
  Cgk733 a redirect, then focusing more on the fact that it was falsified in the article. The Seeker 4 Talk 15:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, move, and rewrite per above. No one here is arguing that its real, but the fact that it gained some notability BEFORE being revealed as a hoax should be covered here. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rewrite, but don't move. Notable hoax, but I rather doubt that there's another Cgk733, so there's no need to disambiguate. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:01, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and re-write to describe the true story. As others have said, if the discovery itself is fake, the fact that there was a (fraudulent) claim about it isn't. Anaxial (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, all info and refs already in article, just needs some polishing. You can be sure that the compound has been synthesized since (see retraction). Cacycle (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.