Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cellular Diagnostics

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete

Cellular Diagnostics
Ad. Delete. JFW | T@lk  15:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I identified Acu-Cell, which looked suspiciously like the page under discussion. I've redirected this temporarily to Cellular Diagnostics as this is page we're dealing with here. JFW | T@lk
 * Acu-cell is also remarkably similar. And being blanked, in the same way as the previous 2 pages, by User:Wikikraut --Mairi 00:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable. Delete. WP:NOT.— Encephalon | &zeta;  17:40:03, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
 * Delete with extreme prejudice. RasputinAXP   talk  *  contribs  18:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete requested by author. Inappropriate forum. Wikikraut 21:17 2005/08/17
 * Will you stop disrupting? VFD will take its course. When you wrote the article, you released any copyrights under the GFDL and cannot claim ownership. JFW | T@lk  10:36, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. This "article" is not about a medical condition, treatment, important finding, or similar topic, but simply a description of a company's product line, using, incidentally, copyrighted images of the company involved. There are no references to the medical literature, no citation of any kind of independant, reputable source. The claims made sound dubious. The text of the "article" has been spammed at other sites, as a Google search conclusively demonstrates. This has no place on WP.— Encephalon | &zeta;  21:49:44, 2005-08-16 (UTC)
 * Note also, the copyrighted AcuCell logo was uploaded by User:Wikkikraut, whose sole edit apart from his activity uploading AcuCell images was to add an AcuCell link to the article on Nutrition . The article, sadly, is NPOV-tagged; one can hardly be surprised.— Encephalon | &zeta;  22:03:16, 2005-08-16 (UTC)


 * Comment about your "Comment:" If you had taken the time 'without prejudice' to investigate the article for accuracy and validity, you would have found that the intent was to provide information only - not anything more, and not anything less. The Acu-Cell site in question also provides Research Information only, but does not solicit any type of business, sell anything, or provide any service to the public. You claim that there is a "product line" (there isn't), and that the article has been "spammed" at other Web sites.  However your Google search link simply shows that this article has been picked up by other sites on the Web - which has nothing to do with this author, so please do not make claims that you cannot back up, or perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the workings of Google. If informational articles such as these are not suitable according to the orientation of those who control it's content, or if they do not follow Wikipedia guidelines, then simply make a comment to that effect, and propose to have it removed, but do not resort to unsubstantiated claims which not only make you sound less than credible (but rather zealous to fulfill your own agenda), or they only serve to tarnish Wikipedia's reputation.
 * Not all information needs to be included on Wikipedia. You will just be considered a nuisance if you come here to make personal attacks at individual voters. Instead you may wish to change the article to show how notable the subject is. JFW | T@lk  02:28, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: No personal attacks were intended or made.  I only questioned the unsubstantiated claims of ONE voter.  If submitting the profile on a unique medical innovation is considered to be a nuisance, then it would appear that the deletion of this article is perhaps to the mutual benefit of Wikipedia AND the author. 209.197.131.83
 * Response. It is ironic that doctors on WP are being accused of making "unsubstantiated claims," when the main reason for this VfD is precisely that the article (and User:209.197.131.X) are pushing "information" that has no independent, reputable substantiation. It is completely true that the entire article does not contain a single reference to the medical literature. It is entirely true that there is no citation of any reputable, peer-reviewed biomedical journal, or text, of any kind. A search of the National Center for Biotechnology Information database reveals not a single citation of the product being pushed ("Acu-Cell"). Not one, from the tens of millions of papers archived over 55 years. In fact, there does not appear to be independent verification of this "Acu-Cell" business anywhere, leave alone from reputable medical sources. At the website of Acu-Cell, there are numberless unconventional, odd claims, with a hocus-pocus of acupuncture, mineral levels ("ratios"), herbs, vitamin supplements, etc., and not a single reference of any kind that I could find, not even a description of the methodology of the "research" and how it was peer reviewed. It is also true that the claims are highly dubious. User:209.197.131.X claims that (s)he is providing "research information;" this is, may I humbly suggest, a misuse of the term "research" as it is understood by the world's scientists and doctors. The "information" is unreferenced, unverified and unsubstantiated to such a degree that I cannot in good conscience allow this article to get onto WP without a vote of protest. Finally, a "product" is not limited to a physical thing. The "Acu-Cell Analysis" is trade-marked, according to the homepage. So is "Acu-Cell Nutrition," from the appearance of that page. Hawking these wares as "research information" is quite disingenuous, and not the sort of thing most editors want to see on WP. If you address these concerns, we would be glad to take a second look, but as it stands the article does not meet WP guidelines.— Encephalon | &zeta;  04:21:16, 2005-08-17 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! I have only become aware of Wikipedia a couple of months ago when it was mentioned in a publication.  From the description, I was under the impression that it was a sort of publicly-created / supported encyclopedia where everyone was able to contribute to its index (save for offensive material).  In the meantime, I have come to learn that there are guidelines which go beyond discouraging "offensive" contributions -- but that any material submitted has to conform to specific precepts to which (at least some) Wikipedia editors adhere to.  While Acu-Cell technology subscribes to the tenets of "evidence-based medicine," your evaluation of "acupuncture or nutritional therapy as hocus-pocus" not only puts you in a category that embraces scientistic dogma, but it taints the entire governing body within Wikipedia as equally biased.  This makes a listing in Wikipedia a liability, rather than an asset, and I will remove the article contributed accordingly. 209.197.131.144


 * Response. User:Wikikraut/User:209.197.131.11/ 209.197.131.144/ 209.197.131.81/ 209.197.131.9/ 209.197.131.62: I (and JFdeWollf) have tried to be very fair to you during this VfD. I've tried to tell you why I feel the pages you created are not suitable for an encyclopedia: they contain many unverified claims, have no evidentiary support, and seem principally directed at attracting readers to (presumably your) trade-marked product. I and JFW have also told you that you're welcome to edit WP, and that we'd be glad to look over even the pages in question if you constructively made changes to them that addressed our concerns. I'm saddened to see that you've not responded to these comments in the spirit we'd hoped.
 * When it is pointed out that your claims lack evidentiary support from authoritative and reputable medical sources, a good response on your part would be to try and provide these, if you believe that your claims are evidence-based. You have not done so, despite two posts from me asking for them. Instead, I regret that you've felt it necessary to call me dogmatic, and accuse me as someone who "embraces scientistic dogma"[sic], whatever that means. You have also found it necessary to go over to JFW's page and announce that I am "biased" and have a "personal agenda;" I have also apparently "taint[ed] the entire governing body within Wikipedia as equally biased."
 * I'd hate to quote anymore guidelines than are absolutely necessary, but it may help you if you could read WP:NPA if you wish to spend time on WP, sir. It's generally thought of as one of the most important precepts to stick to on WP.
 * This all leaves us where we began, of course. It is said that argumentum ad hominem is the refuge of those who do not know any other kind. You claim great things of your Acu-Cell "technology", Wikikraut. You even claim it is evidence-based. I have been asking for the evidence. Can you give it to us?— Encephalon | &zeta;  07:05:28, 2005-08-19 (UTC)


 * Comment Someone who is very likely the author (based on similarity of anon IPs) has repeatedly blanked the Cellular Diagnostics page. There seems little point in continuing to revert him.  Accordingly closed with consensus to delete. -- Curps 02:12, 20 August 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.