Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PYRO-ENERGEN

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 debate was Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 03:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PYRO-ENERGEN

This is a non-notable piece of quackery that has no relevant citations and no verifiability to the claims made in the article. Delete as spam. JDoorjam Talk 16:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Seemed all right to me. If it is merely spam, who's spamming, and why? Could be improved with a few sources. David L Rattigan 16:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• User:Jtakano look at his contrabutions. Appears to be be trying to promote the product and the site.Geni 17:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, interesting. I looked at the original article, and it contained the information about it being unscientific (including a link to a website about quackery), so I assumed it wasn't created by someone actually promoting the product. However, you are right, this user seemed to be spamming several articles with the link. David L Rattigan 17:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete unless evidence is forthcoming that this device is notable in some way. As it stands, there are only 133 unique Google results (2500-odd non-unique), which suggests that it's not just unscientific, but unimportant too. — Haeleth Talk 18:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: not to beat a dead and insignificant horse, but those already-small figures drop to 124 unique and 978 total when you subtract out "Wikipedia" (i.e., Wikimirrors that have content about the Pyro-Energen). JDoorjam Talk 18:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: It was speedied once earlier, then restored after User:Jtakano asked for and received help (by me and others) in trying to rewrite it. However, it turned out to be nearly impossible to write a good article about the device as there doesn't seem to be any (internet based) reliable sources on it. My own view is that it is at best marginally notable, but as User:Jtakano was reasonable about it and willing to listen to suggestions I gave it the benefit of the doubt. Henrik 19:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If many of you believe that the article is nonsense in Wikipedia, you may delete it, that's fine with me. But if you think the article can be improved in someway, like, merging informations, e.g. rife machines, then so much better. Or any other ideas? Jtakano

  Comment Citing sources is always a good idea. There are three rationales posted above for deletion: 1) "non-notable", 2) "no relevant citations", and 3) "no verifiability". Citing sources would knock out #2 and #3. These should be independent sources. If it was invented, was it patented? If so, cite the patent for the invention. I don't know Japanese patent law, but I suspect there is some equivalent to the U.S. patent office that will have made a decision if an application was made. I know that Henrik said there aren't any internet based reliable sources, but hard copy is still legitimate.

  For notability the way of solving the problem is less clear. Why is this worthy of being in an encyclopedia? What source are you going to cite to verify the answer to that question. It should be a source that is neither from the inventor, manufacturor, distributor nor a copy of a press release by one of those. GRBerry 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as I'm not even certain whether there is a claim to notability in the article. GRBerry 21:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, no claim of notability. Ral315 (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable and the sole reference is to the product's website. --Auger Martel 11:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -R. S. Shaw 21:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I thought I'd seen this before, and decided that it was a worthy topic for an encyclopedia; but sure, if you think it's spam, get rid of it. [ælfəks] 02:18, 20 June 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.