Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioelectrification
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete Bioelectrification, no consensus on blood electrification or merge into it. Snowolf How can I help? 03:24, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bioelectrification
AfDs for this article:
Not notable. Neologism. No sources seem to exist outside the proponents' own website. The mere existence of a patent does not make something notable. LeContexte (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as non-notable fringe science.
Merge with blood electrification. A method to neutralize HIV is something notable and worth mentioning somewhere, but the article doesn't have sufficient content for its own subject.=Axlq (talk) 21:05, 8 December 2007 (UTC)- With respect, Axlq, that can't be right - it is easy to come up with an extraordinary claim that, if true, would be notable (e.g. I am the son of God), but that does not make the claim itself notable. There needs to be evidence that the claim is referenced by third parties, and that is just not the case here. LeContexte (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- I wanted to delete blood electrification for the same reason - non-notable fringe science. I started by deleting the irrelevant and misleading sources which the article was linking to, but then realised this would leave no article at all. However when I tried to propose it for deletion I saw there had been a previous deletion discussion back in 2005. The decision was to retain; however the fact the article remains hopelessly unverified after two years means that this surely has to be reviewed. However I couldn't figure out how to propose it for deletion again... would be grateful for some help here! LeContexte (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete both. due to notability as they are unsupported and undiscussed by reliable journal articles per WP:FRINGE. No reliable hits for both articles on Google, Google Scholar or PubMed. Links to PubMed in blood electrification is deceptive since it states something obvious to those who know biotechnology but not to laymen. they may be convinced to think that they are reliable sources. Yes they are RS but not for this article. Those links can be put to good use in electroporation where references are needed. (Note to nom: fix the other Afd on blood electrification, it redirects to the last one. Feel free to put my comment there once it is fixed)--Lenticel (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Something which 'cures' HIV would have rather more coverage than this if it was actually true. Nick mallory (talk) 07:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, cruel spam. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It seems to me that Bioelectrification and Blood electrification need to be treated in the same way. Unless I'm missing something, they are the same thing, although the Blood electrification article is more substantial. If the concept is non-notable, both should be deleted. There are, though, quite a number of sources available to attest to the well-circulated nature of what I consider to be a hoax, not science. Since Blood electrification is not under consideration here, it might be best just to merge anything new from Bioelectrification into it, delete Bioelectrification, and see what it takes to either improve Blood electrification into something acceptable or, once more, propose it for deletion. Tim Ross·talk 01:43, 11 December 2007 (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.
