Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Person Smell

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 Move to 2-Nonenal. Espresso Addict 04:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Person Smell

Old Person Smell (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

You have got to be kidding me. This isn't encyclopedic. It is complete nonsense. It probably qualifies for speedy, but this will do. Rjd0060 01:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep:Before you pull the trigger to kill it, read the article. A scientific basis (i.e. an abstract of a referenced article in a peer reviewed scientific journal) for this phenomenon reconginzed in pop culture is included. User:Smulthaup 09:02PM, Central Time, 22-Sep-2007
  • Delete If only because it could be re-created under an article about Old Age or Odors. Mbisanz 02:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to 2-Nonenal and cleanup. Strangely enough, this article does actually have useful encyclopedic content despite the fact it's currently under a completely unencyclopedic title. It'll need a bit of re-organizing to meet chemical article standards, but it does have potential, and as Smulthaup pointed out, there is a verifiable scientific basis to the whole thing. I saw this in recent changes and had the same reaction Rjd0060 had, but after reading it, this probably doesn't need to be deleted. Hersfold (t/a/c) 02:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I originally started to include the content under palmitoleic acid and vaccenic acid. I also considered it under 2-Nonenal but because it touches on so many chemical topics it needed its own page for ease of reference. User:Smulthaup 09:48PM, Central Time, 22-Sep-2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 02:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. While the article doesn't exactly, uh, "stink," it's slight and unencyclopedic. Qworty 03:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable or soundly based yet. All based on one single unconfirmed scientific paper, published in 2001 and cited 11 times only since then, according to Web of Science--most of them about technical analysis & not directly relevant. Two are, "The scent of age" by Osada K, et al: PROCEEDINGS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON SERIES B-BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES 270 (1518): 929-933 MAY 7 2003, which showed that doesnt work that way in mice, and "Olfaction and identification of unrelated individuals: Examination of the mysteries of human odor recognition" by Olsson SB et al, JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL ECOLOGY 32 (8): 1635-1645 AUG 2006, a fascinating more general paper. I've put the abstract of both papers on User:DGG/smell. Maybe turn it into an article on human odor recognition, since I've gotten this far. DGG (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment The scientific journal article referenced in the Wikipedia article is itself confirmation of prior work. The journal article itself references Nazzaro-Porro M, Passi S, Boniforti L, Belsito F: Effect of aging on fatty acids in skin surface lipids. J Invest Dermatol 73:112 to 117, 1979 User:Smulthaup (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move the encyclopedic content to 2-Nonenal, and I already got rid of the "in popular culture" section. The scientific, encyclopedic content relates to the chemical, but the "in popular culture" references in "The Simpsons" and "The Colbert Report" don't say a thing about 2-nonenal. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)\
  • keep and clean-up- JJJ999 07:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC), it's not unsalvageable, has some scientific basis
  • Move to 2-Nonenal, allow some mention of the "old people smell" claim as it's sourceable, but the scientific basis is weak for attributing the entirety of this meme to one particular hormone. --Dhartung | Talk 08:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. While at least some of this may be salvageable under a new article for 2-Nonenal, one has to remember that this is, in part, a 'translation error' and a 'cultural insensitivity.' That is, what the article is saying is so politically incorrect, it wouldn't be said by most Westerners. However, we often see less-than-perfect terminology when translating from other languages.Ryoung122 09:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move (with the redirect that follows) to 2-Nonenal, per Elkman. This is a legitimate topic, and one that persons are curious about... it's not much different than explaining the role of eliminated platelets in giving something a brown color. Mandsford 15:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just reading the article name made me laugh. An encyclopaedia shouldn't do that! Perhaps move. Operating 23:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move to 2-Nonenal. The remaining section would be fine for a chemical article, and could be cleaned up w/ the standard chemical information templates. Bfigura (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article starts: Old Person Smell is a meme found in pop culture. Yawn. As for any substance to the notion, follow User:DGG. -- Hoary 02:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete As an "old man" I must say this is a highly offensive title, akin to "Jew smell" or "Negro smell" and has only one possibly reliable source. It fails WP:V and WP:N. Edison 03:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
incidentally, this is about the feeblest attempt at a pop culture section I have yet to see. DGG (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move and merge useful content and cites to 2-Nonenal per Elkman, Hersfold, Mandsford, et al. Useful for students who, quite frankly, often searching under highly offensive titles, and are amongst WP's biggest users. Bearian 17:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Pete.Hurd 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Move. The above move seems the best course of action. • Lawrence Cohen 13:37, 24 September 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.