Deletion of Sisi syndrome

Comment: I'm going to stick with delete at this stage - of Cyrus's sources, the BMJ & New Scientist ones are reviews of the book, and make it clear when talking about this syndrome that they're talking about an allegation in the book rather than their own belief, while the second two appear both to be abstracts of the same paper (on which the book was based), hosted on two different sites, making all five sources currently cited ''de facto'' citations to a single paper albeit by five different routes. Yes,  doesn't apply to a company, but  does; unless someone can find a reliable source that this happened, than this article if kept needs to be heavily laced with "allegedly". If it ''did'' happen I've no problem with it being kept - either as a description of the illness, if we believe the company's line, or about the fabricated results if we believe Blech. As Cyrus & I both don't quite say above, if a major multinational like GlaxoSmithKline|GSK were actually to have engaged in this kind of fraud, or even to have had credible allegations made against it, I'd expect there to be a ''lot'' more coverage than there actually is - where's the coverage in the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Pharmaceutical Business Review etc, the lawsuits from people mis-diagnosed, the action by the German health service over misprescribed drugs etc
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (WP:BLP||WP:LIBEL)

Comment: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/reprint/327/7424/1172.pdf, http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19125615.800-time-to-resist-the-illness-industry.html, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12966819, https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00115-003-1489-2. This is everything that I could find about this topic. The first source from BMJ discusses the ''Sisi syndrome'' for only a couple of sentences a couple of paragraphs. The last three sources are all abstracts or translations of abstracts. From what I gather, a pharmaceutical company created this syndrome out of thin air and then tried to sell the medicine to treat it. It was all a hoax in the end. Perhaps this garnered more attention internationally. I would have expected more substantial coverage of such an unethical event. My conclusion is that the company and the product never gained much recognition which probably diminished the backlash. Due to the lack of coverage in |reliable sources, I think this article should be deleted as a |non notable event / disease / hoax
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)