The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by reviewer, closed by AirshipJungleman29talk 05:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
... that DIY medicine is used for abortion, transgender hormone therapy, insulin delivery, erectile dysfunction, protective equipment against COVID, and epinephrine injectors?
Overall: @Buidhe: good work. This is subjective, but I have noticed that the article has an orphan tag. Could you please add a link or remove the tag if you cannot find any? Both hooks are good, but leaning towards ALT1 as more concise. (please mention me on reply) QueenofHearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️⚧️) 19:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Queen Thanks for your review. The article is now de-orphaned. (t · c) buidhe 19:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
Looks good to me. QueenofHearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️⚧️) 19:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't know about either hook. Wouldn't both hooks as written possibly violate WP:MEDRS given they could be interpreted as endorsements? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Not necessarily, more of I remember there being a previous medicine-related nomination a few years ago, Template:Did you know nominations/Young blood transfusion, where the hooks could have been interpreted as promoting questionable medical practices. The hooks themselves aren't as problematic but they are enough to give me pause at least. The sourcing in the article for what it's worth appears to be solid, but perhaps different hooks could be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
There's a difference between promoting WP:FRINGE medical theories widely accepted to be quackery and the cautious hooks proposed here. I'm gonna approve unless there's an issue with a specific source used. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 17:54, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Both sources are review articles, from journals that look OK, so I don't think there is a problem with MEDRS (t · c) buidhe 03:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Article has been nominated for merging; procedurally placing on hold. QueenofHearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️⚧️) 03:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Closed as keep. QueenofHearts 18:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Honestly I think a sensitive topic like this needs more sensitive treatment than it gets here, the article is just too basic. Recommending closing this as a fail. Maybe it could be reconsidered at another time after being brought up to GA standard. Gatoclass (talk) 00:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
What makes it a sensitive topic? (t · c) buidhe 01:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The fact that you have to ask only confirms my impression that you don't get the problem. The problem is that in no way, shape or form should we be running an article that might give people encouragement to start self-medicating. If you weren't paying attention over the last few years, for example, there were thousands of people taking quack medicines to try and protect themselves from covid, and tens of millions who have been convinced by something they read on the internet that covid vaccines are dangerous. There are, in short, armies of people out there who are vulnerable to quack medicine, and we shouldn't be be running an article that might help reinforce their misplaced confidence in self-diagnosis. Gatoclass (talk) 04:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia's purpose is provide information, not protect people from information (for whatever reasons). We shouldn't be promoting stuff—and the article does not promote anything. All I did was look for sources and report what they said in accordance with Wikipedia policies. None of the misinterpretations you suggest are remotely said or implied by the article or any of the suggested hooks. (t · c) buidhe 05:06, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
We are supposed to provide accurate and balanced information, not just random facts apt to mislead. So I'm sorry, but I think an article on a topic like this needs much more comprehensive and balanced treatment than it is getting here. Gatoclass (talk) 06:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I still haven't seen a compelling rationale based in reliable sources that this article is "unbalanced" or that anything in the article is likely to mislead anyone. No it is not comprehensive but that is not an expectation for any article at DYK. (t · c) buidhe 07:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Isn't the very point of any medicine to be safe and effective? Bremps... 03:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Off topic but I'm not sure that's true—many medical treatments have serious risks, but are nevertheless administered because their benefits are believed to exceed the risks for that individual. (t · c) buidhe 07:01, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Given the nomination has been open for almost two months with the issues remaining unaddressed there no longer appears to be a path forward for this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Buidhe: good work. This is subjective, but I have noticed that the article has an orphan tag. Could you please add a link or remove the tag if you cannot find any? Both hooks are good, but leaning towards ALT1 as more concise. (please 
mention me on reply) Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️⚧️) 19:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't know about either hook. Wouldn't both hooks as written possibly violate WP:MEDRS given they could be interpreted as endorsements? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Article has been nominated for merging; procedurally placing on hold. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️⚧️) 03:19, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Given the nomination has been open for almost two months with the issues remaining unaddressed there no longer appears to be a path forward for this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)