Talk:Eutherian fetoembryonic defense system hypothesis

Archived discussion

 * Archive 1 (Oct 2006 - Nov 2006)

Comment on RFC request

 * The article's lead section refers to the 1997 paper, then provides the 2001 reference. The former has been cited 25 times, the later 6 times.  The work has been cited by authors other than GF Clark.  I'm no immunologist, but prior to noticing this RFC I was aware of two papers which dealt with the idea that a developing fetus is essential a foreign body, and therefore prone to provoking an immune response form the mother, these are
 * Koelman et al. 2000. Correlation between oral sex and a low incidence of preeclampsia: a role for soluble HLA in seminal fluid? Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 46:155-166.
 * Robertson & Sharkey. 2001 The role of semen in induction of maternal immune tolerance to pregnancy. Seminars in immunology, 13:243-254.
 * Koelman et al has been cited 23 times, Robertson & Sharkey 29 times.
 * GF Clark's grant does not mention the eutherian fetoembryonic defense system hypothesis in the abstract or thesaurus terms keyword list. I don't find the Gordon Research Conference presentation convincing evidence of the theory being notably widespread in it's influence.  Presentations on the topic my several presenters would be required, a symposium on the theory would be convincing.  Also convincing would be use of "eutherian fetoembryonic defense system" in the keywords or abstracts of papers by several different authors.  I havn't seen any of these.  The article may meet the minimal standards of the proposed Notability (science) notability guideline, maybe not this other one User:Trialsanderrors/SCIENCE.  In either case, this article strikes me as a clear example of Conflict_of_interest and illustrates why WP has policies whch suggest avoiding No original research.  I note also that many of the arguments above take the form of crystal ball (WP not: crystal ball) predictions, that the theory will one day be recognized as important, but isn't quite there now.  In this case WP is being used to publicize a theory, rather than documenting a recognized and influential theory.  I'm not sure how I'd vote an an AFD, but this article illustrates nicely the problem of academics self-promoting their work on WP, rather than waiting for others moved by the importance of their work to fill in the gaps extant on WP. Pete.Hurd 03:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone thinks that this article is "self promotion" or involves "conflict of interest" rather than educating the public on this issue, then s/he should immediately vote to DELETE this article. However, let us point out some salient facts here. If I was truly into "self promotion" as suggested here, I could have raised this issue back in 1997 when the seminal paper was originally published as an Outstanding Contribution in Molecular Human Reproduction. I could have easily obtained the support of the editor of the journal at that time who personally designated this article as an Outstanding Contribution (Robert Geoffrey Edwards). It was after all the first time that any paper in the Human Reproduction journals had ever been given that designation. I am also quite sure that the other reviewers of this paper would have agreed to talk about it. I was actually urged at that time to promote this concept. But I have waited until now (almost a decade later!), when the evidence is about to become overwhelming, to provide a rational explanation for interested parties. But if there are any doubts about the notability of this model or my personal motivations, then please delete it immediately! In fact, I would now prefer that this article be deleted. --Clarkgf 19:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC response: Keep
In my opinion this is an article worth keeping. The topic is infinitely more encyclopedic than a videogame character or Pokemon card. The debate above might have been appropriate if someone were trying to insert this material as a large segment of a broad topic article, but it does no harm to the balance of any other article by existing on its own. We should be welcoming real scientists willing to write brief and intelligible summaries of research topics, and helping them shape the material to reader intelligibility, not "wondering if it should be deleted". alteripse 18:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)