Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biophoton


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 19:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Biophoton

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Pseudoscience (WP:FRINGE). The comparison with the (real) phenomenon of bioluminescence says it all - it has "higher intensity", i.e. it really happens. Started to clean up the lead, realized it was hopeless - NONSciENCE all the way through. The citations look good, but the few that are real science (e.g. ref 8) do not support the article's thesis. Most of the papers listed in "Sources" are not in fact used in the paper at all, they're just a smokescreen. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is not clear that it is all pseudoscience, although I noted the dubious references myself some time ago.  Even if it turns out to be completely pseudoscience that is no reason to deleted the article, it would still be a notable pseudoscience subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep: "Biophoton" is a term which has mainstream scientific usage: ,,, and a lot more here. One source states that "Biophoton emission is now a topical field in contemporary science."   I agree the article needs a lot of work, and the mainstream scientific discourse about biophotons needs to be given prominence in relation to the pseudoscience (WP:WEIGHT,WP:FRINGE).  But these are all WP:SURMOUNTABLE problems that can be improved through ordinary editing.  The topic itself is notable (WP:GNG) and should be kept. --Mike Agricola (talk) 20:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep cleanup. As far as I see, there is no pseudoscience in its definition. Which does not exclude the possibility of sloppy/hoax science. Therefore the article must be pruned of all primary sources (non-survey journal articles). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. It certainly looks like junk science. But if somebody got a Stalin prize for it (the Soviet regime went in for other junk science like Lysenko and Polywater) perhaps it is notable with a sufficient warning. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC).
 * And what WP:RS this warning based would be upon? Staszek Lem (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of what is currently in the article is junk science but if you follow the links given by Mike Agricola above you will see that there is genuine research into the subject. The article needs sorting out, not deleting. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep and Stubify - the current article is junk science, but as pointed out above, the term does have some use in real research. Keep the links to the real papers, toss the current article, and let it be rewritten according to WP. PianoDan (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * (copied from article's talk page): Irrelevant data In my opinion, the page should be scrapped, and remade according to WP guidelines under the article 'Photon' or some other more suitable article as it is a scientific term which has been misinterpreted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muthu raama (talk • contribs) 12:29, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The article obviously cannot be moved to Photon because we already have that article. This article is (or should be) about low level light from biological systems. The term 'Biophoton is in common is in mainstream science to describe this subject.Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I am confused by what people mean by pseudoscience - the study of biophotons (or ultraweak photon emission) is science just as many other areas of scientific study are. There may be some studies conducted in a non-rigorous manner but this is the same in virtually every other area of study. The biophoton entry in wikipedia may not be great but I don't think it should be deleted, perhaps edited. This area of study is hugely interesting and may add much to our current understanding of biology, particularly in medicine - for example, biophoton studies have shown an ability to differentiate between cancerous and non-cancerous tissues, and the technology is starting to be used in non-invasive cancer diagnosis. The entry also cannot be re-classified under photon because it refers to light in a specific form - i.e. that emitted from living things as oppose to light from the sun, or from lasers for example. Considering that the study of biochemistry has led us only so far in our understanding of physiology and medicine It would be a shame to ignore an area of study that potentially furthers our knowledge of how our bodies works, and therefore may add considerably to medicine and our ability to treat diseases such as cancer.


 * Keep this article should be kept but edited to more accurately reflect the history and recent research in this area. Some of the refs may refer to out of date or non-rigorous studies, but this does not mean that there are no rigorous and recent studies - in fact there are many. Daisy.hermit (talk)


 * Well, it seems clear everyone wants to keep this but to edit out the pseudoscience, so I guess we can snow close the discussion. (nom) Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I am happy to have a first go at cleaning the article up. The normal WP requirements should be sufficient for this purpose. If there is no reference to a good quality reliable source it does not go in the article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:16, 20 March 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.