Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood electrification


 * 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 of the debate was keep. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 17:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Blood electrification
This is along the same lines as Hulda Clark's "Zapper." This article will probably turn into a "FDA and AMA are the devil" kind of article...if anyone works on it. CDN99 12:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak delete it seems that this exists, and is discussed a bit on the snake-oil circuit, but there is no denying it lacks a credible evidential basis. This much is stated in the article.  Overall, though, it seems to be remarkably low on Google hits given the enormous coverage of some other quack remedies. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even an artilce about quack medicine can be encyclopedic. We shouldn't delete an article simply because it could become controversial. -Rholton 13:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Like I said in the nomination, there is no evidence it's notable or significant. Controversy has nothing to do with it. - Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, no proof that this is popular quackery. This is a directory of qwuacks as much as it is a directory of sch**ls. Pilatus 14:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - well, I am biased on this one, 'cause I re-wrote it. But I think now it's quite a good stub. It's not confirmed and most likely some hoaxy treatment method, but it cerntainly generates various discussions on the internet. It's hard to do a google search 'cause it does not have a stable name yet. So I say keep, as long as it's close t NPOV and not one-sided glorification (as it was originally). Renata3 18:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I have a thing against quackery, and I think that an encyclopedia should educate and inform not just on things that are true, but on the sorts of scams and hoaxes being put on the public. While this seems not to be as popular as others, it is still important, you know, for the kids (and by kids I mean people who might go to look up this treatment). DeathThoreau 23:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, but we can't write anything other than "it hasn't been demonstrated to be effective in a controlled study." People may interpret this as "suppression."--CDN99 03:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Wasn't this also an "quack"/unproven therapy during Victorian times, and if so does this not render the entire subject encyclo-worthy ? --SockpuppetSamuelson 11:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * You are thinking about the lovely violet wand. This here is just random quacktrash that no one has even heard of, were it not for Wikipedia. Pilatus 13:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've been looking for more information about it, and I've found simply amazing testimonials about how people with self-diagnosed cancer/AIDS/numb toes (all at the same time) have run a current across their skin/blood to cure themselves within hours. I'm betting there will be no research done (other than Beck's) because it's utter bologna sausage, or ham for you non-Newfies.  --CDN99 03:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. No obvious problems. -- JJay 00:28, 17 December 2005 (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.