Talk:Vapour-phase-mediated antimicrobial activity

Untitled
Copyvio checked ok with earwig tool. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour-phase-mediated_antimicrobial_activity
I read you "Copyvio checked ok with earwig tool" this page, but should this page not be removed or moved to another page? The reasons I have are: 1) it seems to be a a (spam) article/wikipedia page written by one of the authors of the papers mentioned 2) it uses pretty much the same 2 articles from the same first author (Feyaerts) 3) the last reference "Plant-derived volatiles may serve as future antifungals". Phys.org. March 9, 2018. Retrieved 2018-03-10." is nothing more but the same reference from Feyaerts et al (check the link, you can see it is written by the same authors again) 4) there are 2 references from other authors Novy P, Kloucek P, Rondevaldova J, Havlik J, Kourimska L, Kokoska L (April 2014). "Thymoquinone vapor significantly affects the results of Staphylococcus aureus sensitivity tests using the standard broth microdilution method". Fitoterapia. 94: 102–7. doi:10.1016/j.fitote.2014.01.024. PMID 24508861 and  Bueno J (2015). "Models of evaluation of antimicrobial activity of essential oils in vapour phase: a promising use in healthcare decontamination". Natural Volatiles & Essential Oils. 2 (2). ISSN 2148-9637. However the first one Noby et al never mentioned the VMAA while it is used as a reference. And the second reference Bueno et al is a valid one, but it just talks about another approach (agar disk diffusion test) that is already mentioned on another wikipedia page. 5) this while page should be either moved or deleted because at the moment it is nothing but a term that is explained. The "term" itself (or process) in this page is supported by only 1 author (Feyaerts) that published 2 papers on it and the last reference on phys.org is again from the same author.

It seems that Feyaerts et al came up with this name (VMAA) and now want to put it out there, but should it be done like this? With a new article based on their papers? There are no secondary sources whatsoever. (Unsigned on my talk)


 * This would be an editorial decision. I moved this to mainspace from draft as a valid topic. Legacypac (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the reference that was not in his place. VMAA is a term coined by Feyaerts et al. and has not been used outside his papers. The article contains no other references than the primary sources from Feyaerts et al.2A02:A03F:4E9A:7700:588E:34DE:73ED:9DC1 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)