Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biosetpoint

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 of the nomination was delete. I really wish people would watchlist AfDs they participate in and address major edits. However, it seems clear that the references provided by the rewrite do not address the biosetpoint theory directly. This is still original research.

This is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source, and we cannot "judge this concept on its scientific merits". That is the job of respected scientific journals and other secondary sources, which if they choose to give it credibility can allow an encyclopaedia article to be written that satisfies WP:NOR and WP:V. In this case they haven't. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 12:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biosetpoint

07/10/06 - There has been a major editing of this entry. It is true that the concept was first published in the journal Medical Hypothesis, but I would invite any critics to judge this concept on its scientific merits. A copy of the manuscript is available for download at the biosetpoint.org website. It is unclear what "not notable" implies as regards myself, but all one has to do is put "Blonz" into any search engine. I can provide a CV to anyone on request. --Blonz 17:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC) E.R Blonz

Apparent neologism/not notable medical theory (11 Google hits) by a not notable Ph.D (10 Google hits) who is likely the author of the article. Appears to be an attempt to push the biosetpoint website. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original research. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 06:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Although a reference is provided, Med Hypoth is a weird journal that is populated partially by cranks and kooks. Wikipedia should not have articles purely based on material from that journal unless it achieves notability outside (e.g. gradual support by authors in other journals). This deletion is not because of NOR (because it is sourced) but because of notability. NB the editor who wrote this article is also the author of the Med Hypoth paper. I sense self-promotion. JFW | T@lk 06:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Dr Blonz is a nutrition expert[1]. His idea that bad eating causes genetic damage is not new, incidentally. JFW | T@lk 06:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete self-promotion for non-notable website and medical paper. User:Blonz also added "Biosetpoint" to Obesity but it was reverted 20 minutes later by a wikipedian nurse. And I wont even touch on the dubiousness of the "theory". A person can no more alter their genetic structure by eating the right food than I can will myself to become a chicken. --IslaySolomon 07:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The trick with publications is not that they are there but who FOLLOWS them up and where they are cited - I see no evidence of any such activity. Maybe in a couple of years? --Charlesknight 09:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. SM247^{My Talk} 23:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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.