Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treating macular degeneration with electrical stimulation

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. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treating macular degeneration with electrical stimulation[edit]

Article is set out like a project, referencing only an educational establishment's FAQ or other WP articles. Assumption is complete original research (points eight and nine at WP:DEL#REASON) - possibly a college paper or coursework? Booglamay (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Edit conflict means article was both PRODded and taken to this AfD. PROD was for similar reason: this is some kind of thesis and thus OR. Ros0709 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks suspiciously like a copyright violation, but would otherwise be an essay. Pointless to redirect this cumbersome unlikely namespace to Macular degeneration. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since nom there have been references added (including identical ones to those at Macular degeneration). This doesn't change the essay-ness of this article though. Booglamay (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see how this doesn't constitute WP:OR. I'd love to be shown otherwise but I'm honestly not expecting it. -FrankTobia (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not coursework or OR, but advertising. I edited it to display the references, which clarifies things considerably. It's a publicity piece for http://acudoctor.com by the obvious COI User:Acumed. (does not seem to be copyvio--he rewrote it considerably from the material on his website). Doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong, although the two purported references to work showing the efficacy are to his and another acupuncture web site. I'd consider it unsuitbale for inclusion in an article on the disease until there is something actually published in a peer-reviewed journal DGG (talk) 15:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. COI, only notable and verifiable content to be merged into macular degeneration. JFW | T@lk 08:04, 22 July 2008 (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.