User:OlavN/*Deletion Discussions

-

Lightweight rail (11.7.2011) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lightweight_rail

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. — Cirt (talk) 07:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC) Lightweight rail

Lightweight rail (edit|talk|history|protect|links|watch|logs) – (View log) (Find sources: "Lightweight rail" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Proded because "Unreferenced article written in an essay form and non-neutral way to promote original research"; prod removed without dealing with issues Edgepedia (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete The entire lightweight rail article reads like an essay, and is built up as a non-neutral arguments for why this concept is so fantastic and bases itself on presenting original research. We have an article about light railway, which covers the topic about railways which are lighter than normal, and we have an article about monorail. The article is constantly mixing terms; it tries to explain a science-fiction version of suspended monorails (real ones which are covered in the monorail article), but at the same time has selected incidents and examples from alleged short-comings from conventional railways which are used to support the authors point of view. Other claims are just not true: there are numerous elevated conventional railways; comparing the person-to-weight ratio of high-speed intercity trains (which for instance contains a dining car and needs more power output per tonne than, for instance a metro) to low-speed, high capacity people movers is mixing apples and bananas. No-where does it introduce any references from reliable sources, instead relying on the author's fanboy page on the issue. And don't get me going on the article being written in first person plural. Arsenikk (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Delete Original research, essay, POV, unreferenced. Arsenikk and Edgepedia have about covered it all. LordVetinari 10:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Delete but not because it's written like an essay, that can be fixed through editing and is not a proper reason for deletion. It is, however, as others have said, not needed given other articles that cover the subject in a more encyclopedic way. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 13:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Delete per nom. oknazevad (talk) 14:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Delete - OR. Kilmer-san (talk) 22:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Response to criticism

The article is now linked to some extra sources, and is now to a greater extent referring to existing rail systems and independent projects, so it should be clear this topic is not just a pie-in-the-sky.

The remaining theoretical discussion is based on a simple calculation: comparing passenger weight (for which the train should be designed) with the traditional freight weight capability. This ratio is about 1:15, and such a design mismatch for a main specification must of cause be pointed out. The consequences of ignoring this important factor are naturally described. There is no original research involved here; just logical thinking, which is allowed.

Regarding lack of neutrality: Which opposing position should be respected here? The position of those who want to disregard weight mismatch issues?

There are no commercial interests, patent claims or protected designs behind this article.

I tried to submit the above response when I removed the delete tag, but by some technical error the submission failed. It consequently seemed I had removed the deletion tag without changing the article. Sorry about this misunderstanding. OlavN (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to add a "keep" !vote, per WP:DISCUSSAFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi OlavN. The standard for something to have an article on Wikipedia is Notability. The details can be found at WP:N, but can be summerized simply as significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The page Reliable sources goes into some depth about the types of sources that are considered reliable.

Regarding the sources in the article:

//http:on-nor.net appears to be a self-published source, by Olav Naess. Is this your work? //http://www.swedetrack.com self-published by Johnston Consulting. //http://www.gtsfoundation.org/kjellgdahlstrom/attachment/here a brochure by the GTS Foundation

A concept of lightweight rail is discussed in the first source, but I'm not seeing the term 'lightweight rail' in the 2nd and 3rd articles. Am I missing something?

Also you mention the ratio of passenger to vehicle being 1:15, then you state that "such a design mismatch for a main specification must of cause be pointed out". Has this design mismatch been mentioned in any reliable source? Edgepedia (talk) 19:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep The didactical term Lightweight Rail could have been replaced by Beamway (or Suspended Monorail). Beamway is used by the Swedish sources I mention, and implies less obligations to write a lot about old rail systems; Suspended Monorail is an old term with obvious notability. (I could easily have included more sources for conventional descriptions of this.)

When I call it Lightweight rail, it is to replace geek/antigeek prejudices with rational environment thinking. I don't know if the important ratio 1:15 has been used previously, but it is the easily calculated ratio between the weight to be transported in a 24 m long wagon (72 passengers: 7 tons) and the too large capability of traditional rail (>105 tons cargo). Avoiding this 1:15 design mismatch is a prerequisite for building a beamway/monorail, and thus achieving a 99 % reduction in ground razing and barrier formation.

My site on-nor.net can be described as my personal wiki. Wiki in the sense that I keep expanding the articles, and the content can be freely used by anyone. OlavN (talk) 08:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Note that we have an article about suspension railways. Arsenikk (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Which could accept the suspended or "Beamway" part of the present article, but for now neither mentions the topic nor links here. Incidentally a personal Web page open for all to read and copy, and frequently updated and expanded by its owner, may be a good thing, but it isn't a wiki. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC) 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.

- The body electric (book) (2.6.2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Body_Electric_%28book%29

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 keep. Consensus is to keep (talk? BWilkins ?track) 10:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC) The Body Electric (book)

The Body Electric (book) (edit|talk|history|protect|links|watch|logs) – (View log • Stats) (Find sources: "The Body Electric (book)" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

Essentially just a recreation of the article here [1]. This recreation has the same issues as the first one. It does not demonstrate notability, contains large amounts of undue material and original research etc. We have the same issues as the previous article. To avoid confusion I will note that there are numerous similarly titled books. Steps I went to check notability:

Google scholar, I checked "The body electric". All of the hits (except a citation to the book) in the first few pages were unrelated to the book so I stopped looking. Google scholar again, I checked "The body electric" Becker in the hopes of getting relevant hits, I found some citations but mostly in articles of dubious quality. Google Books: The first few pages were books of the same or similar name by different authors, to narrow the search down I added Becker to the start: All I found were numerous unreliable fringe publications. Google search: nothing relevant I checked the sources in the article itself, there is only one inline citation,

All in all the book fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG

The article pre-AfD: [2] for reference. As a side arguement: the article in itself would need a complete re-write to be encyclopedic, most of the article is a non-critical paraphrasing of the book and includes numerous fringe claims such as warning of the dangers of EMF fields without putting the mainstream perspective even slightly in view: His contention (supported by much evidence he presents) is that the experts choosing the pollution limits are strongly influenced by the polluting industry, the article also contains OR unrelated to the book about the dangers of EMF; This notion is supported by a comparison with Eastern Europe, where the research done by more independent scientists led to far stricter emission limits, The article also openly admits to being a synthesis of primary sources that aren't directly connected with the article when it states that: Other primary sources: The papers listed in the article Robert O. Becker. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep The AMSA listing as a classic along with the NYT review is sufficient to show the notability of the book. The article needs some considerable cutting, to maybe 1/3 the length, but that's easy enough; I've done about half of it already. DGG ( talk ) 02:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

AMSA's helps to expose medical students to information on subjects not generally covered in traditional curricula, aka it represents non-mainstream teaching. Your reference to AMSA listing it as a classic is on this website [3], note that the website isn't AMSA but a website for Advanced Biofeedback & Energetic Medicine, AMSA appear to have discontinued the course. The course was also on Bioenergic Medicines which aimed to help students, amongst other things, understand the concept of subtle energy, the vital force, qi, and prana. Basically I don't think being in an alternative medicine course book list helps towards notability. Specifically I don't think point 4 of NBOOK: The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country is met for the follow reasons: 1. The course appears to have been cancelled (it's from 10 years ago). 2. The course is not mainstream and so would feature more non-notable fringe works 3. It's a single course, NBOOK mentions requiring courses 4. The book isn't the main book for the class but appears to be extra reading.

IRWolfie- (talk) 09:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I have removed the claim about AMSA from the article because I believe it is misleading, though I did find a copy of the cited document on amsa.org. See the talk page for more details. Dricherby (talk) 11:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers for the extra clarification (which can be found here: [4]). IRWolfie- (talk) 12:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It is not easy to search in Google Scholar, as the 1855 poetry book "I sing the body electric" is difficult to avoid. How to search: Search for the combination The body electric and Becker and Selden. The first result is the correct book. Now click at this entry to get the 454 papers quoting this book. This is not OR - just standard literature search.

The article had to be recreated as it had been totally annihilated, but it is completely rewritten. It has two parts: First the lead for a necessary demonstration of notability, and then a book synopsis. This was quite short for a 350 page text. No OR. It should be explained what is undue about this synopsis. Becker's opinion about electromagnetic pollution is supported by an EU report. I am open to suggestions from unbiased, rationally thinking editors if they think Becker's findings require corroboration. I should have described the other sources as peer-reviewed publications - accepted by expert editors. OlavN (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Google scholar citatations are irrelevant as they are from unreliable sources. Also note WP:GOOGLEHITS. This EU report [5] does not mention Becker and it is OR to link it to the topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Weak keep Apparent WP:FRINGE, but several of those GS citations are reliable. -- 202.124.73.7 (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Having a few citations doesn't help meet WP:NBOOK. Also note that the vast vast majority of citations of the book are not reliable [6], (the ones you may be considering reliable appear to be alternative medicine publications). edit: but anyway, we don't declare book to be notable based on citation counts. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Merge to Electrotherapy. The book does seem to be significant in that field but I've not managed to find very much notability in the book itself (as distinct from the ideas it advances). There are plenty of citations to this book in reputable scientific journals (e.g., [7], [8], [9]). Of these, I was only able to read the second for free and it's pretty typical of scientific citations: "Static and fluctuating electromagnetic fields have been applied with apparent success for the management of pain in a variety of orthopedic conditions, most commonly traumatic bone fractures or surgical osteotomies.9-11" where the three cited works are this book, another book by Becker and a paper by other authors; I think that's the only mention of the book in that article. This is fairly typical of scientific citations: they're unlikely to discuss the book in the sort of detail required by criterion 1 of WP:NBOOK; they tend to give a summary of at most one or two sentences. However, the book did seem to attract some media attention when it was published, though all of this is paywalled so I've not been able to judge how substantial it is: LA Times and a "brief review" in the New York Times is mentioned in this letter to the editor. Since availability of 1980s newspapers on the web isn't great, it's possible that it received more attention than that. There are also a couple of articles in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel [10] [11] from 1987 which include comments from Becker and might also include some discussion of the book. If somebody who has access to these various newspaper articles can evaluate them, I might change to a week keep. Dricherby (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The review is in the article currently in the sources section, it appears to be behind a paywall [12], from the bit that is shown I don't see any critical commentary required per WP:NBOOK, note that thhe sun-sentinel sources are both by the same person and I would harazard a guess that there is not sufficient mention. On a side note, it seems strange to me that though to say it is an academic book but then we have newspaper reviews, this would suggest it is pop-sci. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

It seems a little unusual for a scientific book to be cited by papers and reviewed by the media but I'm not sure it means much. It's described as a summary of the authors' research and I imagine it's possible to write such a summary in language that would be mostly accessible to the lay-person without too much compromise of rigour. Dricherby (talk) 14:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep The cover of the book quotes from a review in San Francisco Chronicle: "An astounding, thought-provoking book." Could the publisher be lying about this contemporary review? The eighties is a long time ago, so we can't expect much to be available on Internet. Shall history (eventually making e.g. AMSA study lists outdated) be purged? OlavN (talk) 06:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Without seeing the actual review, there's no way to know if it's a substantial review (as would be required by WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK) or just a passing remark. Please see the comments above about AMSA. The book was never on an "AMSA study list": it appeared in the bibliography of a document giving recommendations for designers of curricula in "bioelectric medicine". Did anyone ever designed such a curriculum, let alone teach it and recommend that their students read the book? Dricherby (talk) 08:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep Also reviewed in Kirkus[13], Library Journal (Reiser F, Fletcher J, Fialkoff F, Schwarzer A, Sutton J, Cameron J. The Body Electric (Book). Library Journal [serial online]. February 15, 1985;110(3):174.) and Sciences (Adey W. THE ENERGY AROUND US. Sciences [serial online]. January 1986;26(1):52.) Google Search and Google Books indicate it was widely discussed in the 80s and since. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What search terms were you searching with? All I saw was self published and fringe rubbish in google search and google books. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

If we can get a few more decent reviews notability will be satisfied. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Notable book, meets WP:GNG. Many book search sources on google refer to it as a "pioneering" work.[14][15] I see many sources refers to it as a "bestseller" though I cannot confirm how accurate that is in a quick search.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

These are not reliable sources, the first book aims to integrate the diverse concerns of ecofeminism, holistic health, alternative education, the New Physics, spirtual pathways and extraterrestrial contact into a coherent worldview whilst the second is another fringe book, Zapped: Why Your Cell Phone Shouldn't Be Your Alarm Clock and 1,268 Ways to Outsmart the Hazards of Electronic Pollution which claims that Invisible pollution surrounds us twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, interrupting our bodies’ natural flow of energy. For reference, here is the notability criteria for books: WP:BKCRIT. IRWolfie- (talk) 08:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Just because these books are fringe doesn't mean they are making it up that the book was popular. Pop-culture science is full of popular books about baloney.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

That is irrelevant, what is important is if it's notable, and this needs to be indicated by either A. significant coverage in reliable sources, or B. meeting the WP:NBOOK criteria, being featured in some fringe books (which aren't reliable sources) doesn't help with that. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Numerous references in books is something to consider for notability. Its not clear to me you have perspective on 1980s pop-science fads, of which this was part? Some of sources of the time, already found by other editors, confirm its notability. This may not be as notable as baloney like the Jupiter Effect, but its still notable.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Numerous non-trivial mentions in reliable sources sure (per GNG), but I don't think in unreliable fringe publications which by their very nature tend to discuss obscure topics. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm worried that your argument seems to be The Body Electric is fringe, therefore anything that discusses it is fringe, therefore anything that discusses it is not a reliable source, therefore it is not notable. By the same argument, no fringe theory is notable. The second of the books that Milowent linked was published by HarperCollins and I don't think it's so easily dismissed. Dricherby (talk) 23:37, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Have you actually checked the book out? Here is a review of the second of the books, Zapped which was mentioned by Dricherby above : [16], the zinger at the end: If you're worried about the dangers of EMFs, wait for a more credible source than this one.. Also another paragraph: she brings up nonscientific concepts like chi and prana and claims, on page 9, that medicines heal us of illness because of the frequencies they emit, not due to their physical or chemical properties. Her adherence to the unproven concepts of traditional Chinese medicine puts the science she presents later in the book on uncertain footing. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC) I've added text in italics to avoid confusion as to what book I was talking aboutIRWolfie- (talk) 10:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The quality of the book is irrelevant to its notability. WP is not a book review site, where we evaluate the quality of books. If RSs review the book, then it's notable--no matter whether notable good or notably awful. (What we can do, though, is quote a fair representative summary sentence from a review) DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the Body Electric itself here, I was talking about the Book called Zapped which was referred to above as being a reliable source. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Zapped! did have some fringe science, but OH what a fringe.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The question is not whether Zapped is scientifically accurate; the question is whether the cite in it that the b.e. is a " time-honored classic" shows notability; reliable in this sense means editorially discriminating in some sensible manner between different books, and it does discriminate: it is one of the 2 listed. The book is independent, published by a division of Harpers and is in 300 libraries. I agree b.e. is fringe science, but it's notable fringe science. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

"Reliable" is not a binary determination. Just because a source is not a reliable source for scientific fact, it may be a reliable source for describing the beliefs of certain (fringe) people. I don't understand why a fringe publication wouldn't be acceptable for establishing the notability of a fringe subject. APL (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Delete as not being covered in significant depth by independent third party sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

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. -

Body grounding (21.4.2013) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Body_earthing

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. J04n(talk page) 00:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Body earthing

Body earthing (edit|talk|history|protect|links|watch|logs) – (View log · Stats) (Find sources: "Body earthing" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images)

The article consists of original research by combining journal articles which are not about the topic, and as well as advertising and fringe health advice. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete: Per WP:BOLLOCKS. Pure OR not supported by the sources provided. Promotional and fringe nonsense. Nothing worth salvaging or merging. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Delete as pure WP:OR. Stuartyeates (talk) 03:26, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Weak Keep The article may be mostly OR as it stands, but Google Scholar has a large number of articles on the term. scope_creep (talk) 00:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no. You just found a few (34) irrelevant articles where the words "body" and "earthing" occur in succession, and where the word "body" usually refers to the body of a vehicle. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep This phenomenon is normally simply called Earthing or Grounding, but those words are too ambiguous. It might be more correct to rename the article Earthing (physiology) or Grounding (physiology). Futile attempts at searching for Body earthing are hence insignificant. The articles quoted may seem to not be about the topic, but the relevance of research papers mentioning simply Grounding or Earthing should now be clear.

In what way is the article written like an advertisement? It is not promoting any product or service.

The book Earthing establishes notability, even though it is not fully scientific.

Simple solutions may seem pseudoscientific in comparison with sophisticated solutions. OlavN (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The existence of an unreliable pseudoscientific book does not help establish notability. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Keep: Doesn't the use of a practice by millions of people deserve a mention in wikipedia? Are you saying that the peer-reviewed Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine and the Journal of Environmental and Public Health are unworthy sources? Go to PubMed and search for "Earthing" and you'll find many relevant articles. Finally, this isn't a reason to keep the article, but if you build this DIY device and test out Earthing for yourself, I think you'll be convinced it's something real. Jonathan108 (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I think they are unworthy of showing notability because the papers are clearly unreliable. Also, pubmed shows exactly 4 articles (3 by the same group), not "many". IRWolfie- (talk) 15:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The link to PubMed which I provided searched for "earthing+grounding". I just changed it to search for "earthing" alone and it turned up five more relevant papers (two of them by researchers not associated with the previous groups.) Here is the new PubMed link. I don't know on what basis you have deemed the papers "unreliable." Jonathan108 (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

On reading the abstract and seeing they are nonsensical and published in unreliable journals. The concept that people need to be grounded by being wired up to a system with wires sticking into the ground outdoors is patently absurd and seemingly based off a child's conception of physics. Your pubmed search is a mixture of different topics. These aren't sources we can use to write an article. IRWolfie- (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment: NONE of the reliable sources provided by the keep voters above are at all relevant to the topic of this article. They are all coincidental occurences of the words used in articles on completely unrelated topics. NONE of the sources that mention this topic are reliable. None are on the National Institute of Health Core Clinical Journals list.1. The main source for this article, the Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, isn't among the top 1000 medical journals on the SJR Medicine list.2Not surprisng, because it has an incredibly low JSR score of 0.56.3. They are all fringe or extreme minority publications with extremely little impact in the field. In short, I see no reliable sources whatsoever discussing the topic of this article, which is not surprising, at it is patent nonsense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Delete: I do not think that it is the job of the AfD discussion to determine the correctness of the article or how valid the science is. However, the sources for the article are not reliable enough for this article to be notable. The journal articles that exist are perhaps the strongest evidence for notability. They are from three journals: the Journal of Alternative Complementary Medicine, the Journal of Environmental and Public Health and Medical Hyopthesis. Neither of these journals are very reliable. All have very low impact factors (in fact the second one doesn't seem to be listed at all). The first two do not come from major publishing houses and are quite obscure and unreliable, and the third is perhaps one of the most notoriously pseudoscientific journals in existence.

The papers themselves seem unreliable as well. They all share the same few authors. In the paper "Earthing (grounding) the human body reduces blood viscosity-a major factor in cardiovascular disease," the authors disclose that they are "independent contractors for Earth FX, Inc., the company sponsoring earthing research, and own a small percentage of shares in the company." This combined with the low reputation of the journal itself seriously calls into question the reliability of the paper.

The authors of another paper, "Earthing the human organism influences bioelectrical processes" have no other papers ever published on PubMed except ones on Earthing. They have also written the paper "The neuromodulative role of earthing" published in Med. Hypotheses. A Google search for their names, Karol Sokal, and Pawel Sokal, turns up no mentions for anything other than Earthing. In fact, a search for the Department of Ambulatory Cardiology, Military Clinical Hospital, Bydgoszcz, Poland, (Karol Sokal's affiliation) turns up nothing other than more articles about Earthing. Their email addresses is hosted at wp.pl, what appears to be a Polish internet portal and not an academic institution.

I have looked into the topic thoroughly and have not found any evidence of any study in a notable, reliable journal by reliable third-party authors. I have only seen many articles of dubious source and reliability, as well as the typical array of news articles and blog posts advertising this so-called groundbreaking discovery. These sources are not NPOV and are advertisements, and I haven't even seen any reliable third-party sources that discredit or disprove grounding to balance the article out. Per WP:GNG, we need the article to be based on independent, neutral, third-party sources to ensure NPOV, which the topic lacks. I believe that there is really no real secondary source on the topic either -- the article cites wholly original sources which seem to be self-published ones in disguise. Per IRWolfie, the existence of a single book that bills earthing as the most important discovery ever does not help establish notability either. Note that the book shares an author, Stephen T. Sinatra, with the papers published in Journal of Environmental and Public Health, and is known to be a contractor of Earthing's sponsoring company, so the book is not a third-party secondary source either.

Overall, the sources available are neither reliable nor independent, and cannot be used to express a neutral point of view. They represent mostly original research, with third-party secondary sources non-existent. Thus, the article fails to meet WP:GNG, and thus should be deleted. Richard Yetalk 07:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete - no, this isn't practiced by "millions" of people, Jonathan, and no, it doesn't "deserve" an article. It's clearly not notable and not even notable as a fringe theory. Notable freaky practices inlcude fart lighting and nose picking. Notable pseudosciences include wearing a tin foil hat, playing with a ouija board, and rolfing. This isn't one of them. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

So you haven't bothered to read down to the last paragraph of the article? It shows that earthing is practiced by perhaps billions - those going barefoot, swimming etc. (Their health benefits must of course be corrected for the other effects of poverty.) OlavN (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

See WP:BOLLOCKS. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC) That's got to be the most absurd thing that I have ever heard as an argument. The neutral, third-party, secondary sources backing up your assertion are non-existent, as I have summarized in my argument above. Without those, Wikipedia cannot have an article on the subject. Period. Even if you were somehow correct in your assertion and Earthing is somehow real, Wikipedia seeks verifiability, not truth. Richard Yetalk 19:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Delete - New age quackery "backed" by fringe sourcing. Carrite (talk) 19:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

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.

--


 * 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. If anyone feels that there was WP:MEDRS-compliant content that needs to be merged into stem-cell therapy where the topic can be adequate covered I will email the deleted text for such use. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Regeneration therapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Topic is already dealt with at stem cell therapy. Redirect there. No proper refs here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Topic appears to be a mixture of stem cell therapy and some other more fringe synthesis to the topic, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Content fork of Stem cell therapy mixed with non-notable and unreliably sourced fringe nonsense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: If there is any content that complies with WP:MEDRS (none that I could see), it can be properly incorporated into Stem cell therapy. I've dropped a note about this debate on the Stem cell therapy talk page. --RexxS (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I created this article and labeled it Stub in order to get a positive cooperation elucidating the whole range of regeneration therapies. I hoped experts on the topic could provide research evidence against the electromedical methods. But now it seems censorship without research evidence is the practiced wiki way. Is stem cell therapy the only method that may be mentioned? OlavN (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The "practised wiki way" is to get rid of unsourced personal speculations because they can't be verified. Try finding sources first and writing articles based on them. --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to see an article on this, that is not about stem cells. Is there at least one secondary reference? The third paragraph of the article is not clearly written, and can easily be misinterpreted. Sidelight 12 Talk 22:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article should make it clearer that it hasn't happened yet, but the possibility of such therapy has been repeatedly discussed, and references could be aded. I think we could even find sourcea for satisfying MEDRES somewhere in the extensive review literature on stem cells & related topics, not that I think MEDRES really applies to this sort of article.  DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article should make clear that it hasn't happened, period (WP:CRYSTAL?). And then references must be added - they are not optional. There's a perfectly good article on Stem cells if you want to write about them, instead of creating an unsourced POV content fork. Whoever closes this ought to note that by project-wide consensus WP:RS tells us that WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical assertions and sources used to support a medical claim - and anybody who thinks "Regeneration therapy is a therapy for stimulating the regrowth of an amputated or destroyed body part" isn't a medical claim needs to find out how to use an English dictionary. --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your statement "but the possibility of such therapy has been repeatedly discussed" is not falsifiable since you do not indicate what sources you are talking about. Is this based on your own personal feelings? I also agree with RexxS that the claim that MEDRS doesn't apply to a purported therapy to be an odd statement. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.