Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havards

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.

[edit] Havards

The result was Delete. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Havards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This is original research, verging on advertising. I can find no independent confirmation. The link provided is to a web-site run by the Warren Ward who is said to have discovered "havards"; I can't find any mention of "havards" there, but the website has pages for various diseases, the cure for which turns out to be "ActivSignal^TM Sodium, a new invention of Warren Ward". JohnCD (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:OR.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 11:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
• It's better to WP:PROD and article only an hour old created as a first edit. But yeah, far as I can tell this is of dubious merit. Potatoswatter (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as promotional sounding original research. Bfigura ^(talk) 23:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Citations added. This activity of ducts is well known to biologists and the name is descriptive —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montepoeta (talk • contribs) 09:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

• reference to Ward and web site reference removed to avoid suggestion of advertising —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montepoeta (talk • contribs) 10:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as original research and neologism. Active homeostasis exists, but the references do not appear to support the usage of this term in anatomy or biology. - Eldereft ~(s)talk~ 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The only appearance in Medline is as a typo for hazards. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination and the comments of Eldereft and Espresso Addict. No mention of this term seems to exist anywhere in the published scientific literature. Medline and WoS produce no positives and GoogleScholar produces only false positives as well[1]. As a test, I downloaded the first reference listed, the article of Tomas Ganz in "Nature Reviews: Immunology". The term "havards" is never mentioned there and the word "duct" does not appear there even once either. Apart from WP:OR there are basic WP:V problems with this entry. Moreover, even if one or two published reliable sources are eventually uncovered, it is clear that the subject fails WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2008 (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.