Talk:Wrapping technology
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 3 December 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Merged. |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wrapping technology redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
| The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
 | The contents of the Wrapping technology page were merged into Dehydron on 03 December 2014. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
COI all over this[edit]
This article and the similarly flawed Dehydron seem to exist to promote Ariel Fernandez. They do not meet criteria of notability, they are unreadably technical, and are promotional. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
This page should not be speedy deleted because...[edit]
This page should not be speedily deleted because wrapping technology constitutes a significant invention in drug discovery. Wrapping technology and its related concept, the dehydron, have been quite universally accepted as evidenced by the number of reviews in major venues such as Nature, BBC News, Scientific American, The UK Royal Society of Chemistry, etc. Here are the links:
Nature BBC News Scientific American Royal Society of Chemistry
Furthermore, the wrapping technology as applied to imatinib redesign has been further reviewed by prominent Harvard Oncologist George Demetri: Review by George Demetri
If the article as it stands appears to be somewhat promotional, I offer to edit as needed to make it look completely objective. Thanks for your attention.
Haydee Belinky Haydee Belinky (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Not one of the first 4 sources - not one - says it is "a signifcant discovery in drug discovery." The word "drug" does not appear in any of them. Demetri comment on the actual drug design work is more relevant; nice results in animals. Whether it makes a better drug for humans, remains to be seen. And that is where you were making this page dramatically promotional and even your discussion above is promotional in that way. It is great science. It contributes to our understanding of biology and possibly of evolution. It ~may~ have utility in drug disovery but that is 100% speculation] at this point, and we do not do that on Wikipedia. It is promotional to talk about them that way (even beyond academic ego-driven self promotion) as that is where the $ is. 00:47, 7 February 2014 (UTC)