Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Streaming organism

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. -Splash 22:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Streaming organism

Appears to be OR linked to Wisdom of the Body, also on AfD. Could possibly be some salvageable info for other articles in there, but biology is not one of my strong points. the wub "?/!" 13:27, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Chunitaku 14:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
  • commentWhy do you think that this should be deleted?" Roodog2k (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• verify that this is notable and/or not a crackpot slant of another accepted theory Roodog2k (talk) 16:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research. Only references provided in the article are to a website, http://www.what-is-cancer.com/, developed by Gershom Zajicek, MD. The site presents a nontraditional medical theory which as of 2005 does not have any widespread acceptance. A Google search on sites that link to www.what-is-cancer.com yields only 75 hits, only 18 of which are displayed, most of which are internal links within the site. The site's link entitled Recent papers does not refer to peer-reviewed print papers in medical journals, but to pages within the site itself. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Online search of the Proquest Research Library shows no hits for "non-linear medicine" and no hits for "Gershom Zajicek". This database indexes about 2000 research publications, which means that it is not all that comprehensive but does cover all the big guns like Science, Nature, JAMA Dpbsmith (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Entrez Pubmed search for "Gershom Zajicek" shows only one hit, for "Prophylactic administration of topical glutamine enhances the capability of the rat colon to resist inflammatory damage." See below, I stand corrected. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Original research and non-notable crackpottery. Thanks to those who researched this. Quale 05:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment The search in PubMed under the name of Zajicek G yields 180 references of which about 40 are on streaming in various organs

It does.

Most of the most relevant papers were published in Medical Hypotheses. This journal is published by the well-known publisher Elseviers, and has an editor, but describes itself as follows:

"Medical Hypotheses takes a deliberately different approach to peer review. Most contemporary practice tends to discriminate against radical ideas that conflict with current theory and practice. Medical Hypotheses will publish radical ideas, so long as they are coherent and clearly expressed. Furthermore, traditional peer review can oblige authors to distort their true views to satisfy referees, and so diminish authorial responsibility and accountability. In Medical Hypotheses, the authors' responsibility for the integrity, precision and accuracy of their work is paramount. The editor sees his role as a 'chooser', not a 'changer': choosing to publish what are judged to be the best papers from those submitted. Papers in Medical Hypotheses take a standard scientific form in terms of style, structure and referencing. The journal therefore constitutes a bridge between cutting-edge theory and the mainstream of medical and scientific communication, which ideas must eventually enter if they are to be critiqued and tested against observations."

Our ban on "original research" is usually taken to apply to material which has not been published outside Wikipedia. I would describe this as material that has been published, and has been been published in a "medical journal," one significant enough to be indexed by PubMed... but a rather odd "medical journal." I think it is accurate to say that it is not peer-reviewed. "Medical Hypotheses" seems to be intentionally set up for the exposure of not-yet-accepted theories. If so, that material would not yet be ready for inclusion in an encyclopedia.

My "delete" vote stands—but on shakier ground. Dpbsmith (talk)

Comment Nearly all publications on streaming organs were published in peer reviewed journals here are some data on the streaming liver

 Dig. Dis. Sci. 1 publication
 Liver  8 publications
 Gastroenterology 2 publications

Gentlemen, it seems to me that your arguments are not serious. The Streaming Organism theory is based on reliable experiments which were published in peer reviewed journals. You may not like it which does not mean that you may censor it. Such an act would undermine the free spirit of Wikipedia.

Prof. Gershom Zajicek M.D.

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.