Talk:Rhumart

Speedy
This article was nominated for Speedy Deletion CSD A1, "no context" by user:Orangemike on March 26 2008.
 * I contest the speedy deletion since there is now context in this article by having a reference to Electromagnetic therapy. --CyclePat (talk) 05:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Prod
This article was nominated for Prod, "Non-notable patent/gadget" by User:Orangemike on March 26 2008.
 * I plan to contest the PROD because there are sufficient "external" references (not directly related to the subject matter such as the current references to the pattent) that are not directly linked to the subject matter itself. (For now see the note section at Electromagnetic therapy, which has a peer-reviewed article on this device which is more commonly called the Rhumart. --CyclePat (talk) 06:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See also which is a US patent... and note that it is a world wide patent. --CyclePat (talk) 06:23, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So? Doesn't appear to be the same or similar device.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 06:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the device itself lists the patent number. And I believe if you take a look at patent's image you can see name "Rhumart" on one of the pictures. Finally the device is under the same inventor's name. --CyclePat (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See also Scholarly Google Links, News reports from Google. --CyclePat (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD
Someone will remove the PROD, adding parallel AfD. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Other documents to look at!

 * témoignage de personnes
 * Electromagnetic regulations for medical devices
 * not completely ralated: A study on EMF and tumours (search champ mag)
 * Article on nuclear stuff and magnetism

Note 5
"Similar looking device" is a legal conclusion, not suitable for Wikipedia without a source. I won't remove it, in an attempt to allow continued improvement in the article, but it's serious WP:OR. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A tough decision which I made. I think it will be explained a little later on, perhaps having a picture which displays both patents would be best! An image is often worth a thousands words. I appreciate the patience as we work on developing the article.  --CyclePat (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger
This template was proposed for a merger however was reverted by Arthur Rubin because of his apparent objection: I've place it back here For Readers Information' (FRI):

I can't find the correct template either.

The article was incorrectly merged to Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc., while under AfD discussion. As the correct target for this name is obviously electromagnetic therapy, the redirect is inappropriate, even if something was merged. &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this, the device in question is much more "notable" within the Supreme court of Canada's trial then as a therapy. Or do you sudenly have some information that this device is notable as a therapy device. Again, as stated in WP:BOLD and WP:MERGE it is appropriate to merge an article even if during a proposed AfD. --CyclePat (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec, not necessarily fully responsive to the last revision)
 * You're clearly not supposed to be that WP:BOLD while the article is under WP:AfD consideration. See, Guide to deletion.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do appologize. I'm trully am sorry and admire your patience towards my "unorthodox" method. I honesstly though I was right on doing this merger. Again, I'm sorry and would like to appologize to you, Arthur, and Wikipedia's contributor. How about we talk about the merger at talk:Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc., or would the Afd be a better place? --CyclePat (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the AfD an appropriate place, as if the result is delete (even if userfied), most of your "merge" has to be reverted (and possibly deleted), per the GFDL, unless the material added was all yours (which I think it is). I didn't check exactly what you added to the court case, so it's possible that some of your additions are appropriate.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Redirected
The article failed AfD, was userfied for more work then shifted back into mainspace, but it still nearly identical and does not seem to resolve the problems noted in the AfD. It was tagged for merger, and the target-page merger discussion supports merging. Therefore (given that target-page discussion saying there's no new important content here) I'm setting redirect. The alternative is CSD-G4. DMacks (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)