Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Microbial Organ
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 delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:14, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Human Microbial Organ[edit]
Probiotic claptrap JBKramer 19:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/Redirect: The documentation of kooky theories of health/healthy living with large followings are still encyclopedic. The non-overlap should be added to Probiotic. ju66l3r 19:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete As pseudoscience/original research. Should also delete most of Deolankar's other contributions, though a few of the created articles fit within mainstream science (e.g., Spatial Epidemiology,Multiple morbidities,Nugent score are real terms; Umbil and Kanjika are probably real plants, but the articles make unsourced claims):
- Disease Causal Chain,Sufficient causes, Component causes, Prebiotic scores, Microecology, Defining the diseases,Disease Informatics, Synbiotics, Immunodietetics, Ecoorgan,Eco-nutrition, Kanjika, Bioecological Medicine, Dysbiosis, Gnotobiotic animal, Umbil, Germ-free animal. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Could someone do me the favor of pointing out where in the wikipedia policies it says that non-mainstream/pseudo science are criteria for deletion? If this is the case, then Hoxsey method, South Beach Diet, and a billion other documented alternative therapy are going to need nomination, too. Probiotic research is more mainstream than most alternative theories on good health. That notwithstanding, I feel like all of the various articles started by this editor would probably do better as maybe 2-3 total articles on the topics (e.g. Sufficient causes, Disease Causal Chain, Component causes, Defining the diseases, and Multiple morbidities would probably make a single good article...under Disease Causal Chain, maybe). Thanks. ju66l3r 20:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources and original research.
Nonefew of the articles listed have sources. The sources listed for Human Microbial Organ only provide support support for the premise's background, not the premise itself. I didn't suggest the Probiotics article for deletion because it is sourced. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- I originally responded to your first comment. Regarding the second half of your comments, I agree with you that some of the articles that the author has created are legitimate terms; my objection is that they are all solely framed within a Probiotic perspective (and I also agree that some of them do not merit their own article; Multiple morbidities, for example, is probably not expandable to anything more than a dictdef. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's understandable, although if an article is solely framed from a single PoV, it seems {{pov}} would be more appropriate than deletion. I'm also just not thrilled about the irrelevance and bias that a deletion reason of "probiotic claptrap" followed up with "delete as pseudoscience" and "delete other contributions although some fit mainstream science" give to the discussion. None of those three comments are justification for deletion...improvement, to be sure, but not necessarily deletion. ju66l3r 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When I write probiotic claptrap, I mean just that. If you believe that an article exists that reads, in full "the Human Microbial Organ is what a finge of pseudoscientists insists on calling a Human in an attempt to dupe unknowing sick people into giving them money," I am happy to have that article. JBKramer 17:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's understandable, although if an article is solely framed from a single PoV, it seems {{pov}} would be more appropriate than deletion. I'm also just not thrilled about the irrelevance and bias that a deletion reason of "probiotic claptrap" followed up with "delete as pseudoscience" and "delete other contributions although some fit mainstream science" give to the discussion. None of those three comments are justification for deletion...improvement, to be sure, but not necessarily deletion. ju66l3r 21:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I originally responded to your first comment. Regarding the second half of your comments, I agree with you that some of the articles that the author has created are legitimate terms; my objection is that they are all solely framed within a Probiotic perspective (and I also agree that some of them do not merit their own article; Multiple morbidities, for example, is probably not expandable to anything more than a dictdef. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- See Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources and original research.
- Comment: Could someone do me the favor of pointing out where in the wikipedia policies it says that non-mainstream/pseudo science are criteria for deletion? If this is the case, then Hoxsey method, South Beach Diet, and a billion other documented alternative therapy are going to need nomination, too. Probiotic research is more mainstream than most alternative theories on good health. That notwithstanding, I feel like all of the various articles started by this editor would probably do better as maybe 2-3 total articles on the topics (e.g. Sufficient causes, Disease Causal Chain, Component causes, Defining the diseases, and Multiple morbidities would probably make a single good article...under Disease Causal Chain, maybe). Thanks. ju66l3r 20:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete very much. OR. I've had an eye on this for a while, but overlooked it. - CrazyRussian talk/email 09:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete OR/nonsense. --Peta 04:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete original research, TewfikTalk 20:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.