Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Supermarket skin

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. -Splash^talk 19:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Supermarket skin and Exogenous xeroderma modo

A skin condition. All sounds very reasonable. But it doesn't exist. Google 0 hits, Pubmed no citations. Original research. Delete. JFW | T@lk 01:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Vsmith 01:36, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Hfwd 02:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense. —Brim 05:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 08:52, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: duplicate created at Exogenous xeroderma modo by original author User:Ifca. Gazpacho 08:24, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I've added an AfD tag to that duplicate article and added it to this AfD. --Locke Cole ^{(talk) (e-mail)} 09:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete the duplicate. Google does not provide any support that this term exists. Good grounds for suspificion. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep This is an important article. It should not de deleted. I have a friend who is suffering from this very condition. As noted in the article itself, there are vested interests in supressing such information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.44.178 (talk • contribs)
  • Oh, the complot theory was very quick in coming! Now please consider that Wikipedia is not a medical journal, and that we do not publish information that cannot be verified from external sources. As related on the talk page, if this condition is being invented it is to sue supermarkets. This is what I call trash medicine. JFW | T@lk 22:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    • THANKYOU. Thankyou, for illustrating with passion, that there are vested interests, not just financial, but REPUTATIONS also. Who is the 'WE' in 'we do not publish...' ?? Ifca 05:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • We = Wikipedia. Have you read the policies I quoted? Which reputations are you talking about? If this condition has indeed been invented to sue supermarkets, then it's trash medicine, not diagnostic or therapeutic medicine. JFW | T@lk 07:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Ifca 05:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC) , Thankyou JFW for highlighting WP:NOR and WP:V, I have now quoted a couple of readily available texts pertinent to the subject that should appeal to your POV (WP:NOR). 'Verifiability' is I believe, a question of name rather than testimonium (any suggestions? -Exogenous xeroderma modo -more a description than name).
  • JFW I understand and respect your need for rigourous debate, however, I feel, deletion at present will not build a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Beyond this I hope we spend our time building our collective knowledge base rather than deleting it.
  • If to be peer reviewed, I hope climateolgists, physicists, biologists and architects may sit with medicine. Ifca 05:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There are still no references that support the existence of exogenous xeroderma modo; all you've done is quote some physiology stuff. Our collective knowledge, as far as PubMed and Google is concerned, does not contain an entity called "supermarket skin" or "exogenous xeroderma modo". For all we know, you may have invented it. This perception can only change is there is reliable outside material we can trust to describe the situation reliably. I'm more that slightly concerned about the talk about "suppression" and "vested interests"; this simply indicates that all this stuff is already controversial. Wikipedia (I'll state again) describes what is already known, not something you think the world should know. JFW | T@lk 07:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • JFW, I did not talk of "suppression", vested interests yes. but since you have mentioned it, maybe a collective reputation is acting to suppress this article, or maybe even individuals. This disputed article IS stating what is already known, please re-read the sentance above ('Verifiability' is I believe...) and then Google Exogenous xeroderma, and then start working to heal, and build. I found over 18 thousand hits, Xerosis over 80 thousand. You did originally say "A skin condition. All sounds very reasonable.".
      • JFW, I agree Wikipedia describes what is already known (as I believe this article does), a statement that no individual should be able to state what they think the world should know, is by the same token supportive that no individual should be able to stop another(or others) saying something, and this is why Wikipedians try not to get personal and a decision is made by consensus, involving others. I'd like to think that others would have an opportunity to contribute to this article in the future.Ifca 20:57, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Ifca, your responses are getting embarassing. Googling for "exogenous xeroderma" (with quotation marks) yields three results, none of which describe even remotely the condition you have invented. When I nominated for deletion I wrote "sounds reasonable" because it was actually a hoax and the material was fictive. This decision is indeed to be by consensus, and consensus is overwhelmingly against you. JFW | T@lk 22:19, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
      • JFW, A response to the two points above many help. By Googling "exogenous xeroderma" with quotes you have proved to not understand, and appear to put more energy into dispute than resolution. If "the material was fictive", then correct it, a common activity performed by Wikipedians ;) Ifca 08:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no need to correct something if it is verifiable. I would have loved to improve this article if there way any material to rely on. Improving articles is actually one of my most common activities on Wikipedia (see here for a recent example). I fully understand the way quotes work in Google: they actually look for the two search terms right next to each other. I'm not looking for dispute: I have given you every opportunity to provide evidence that "exogenous xeroderma" or "supermarket skin" exists. So far you have failed most disappointingly. Now do you mind if I go do something useful? JFW | T@lk 09:22, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
      • feel free, Ifca 10:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. A complex subject, involving complex sciences, based upon sound physical fundamentals.82.153.98.137 12:32, 27 November 2005 (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.