Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronic cellular dehydration


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:21, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Chronic cellular dehydration

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Topic doesn't seem to get substantial coverage in any sources. Google search only gets sources mirroring the WP article. Can't find sources discussing the term's use by alt. med practitioners (though it would be great if some others could look as well). Only scientific discussion is here and papers that cite it, but it's not enough to build an article off of. I'm unclear if topic meets WP:GNG. Comments would be much appreciated. Ajpolino (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. — Paleo  Neonate  - 06:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been mentioned at User talk:CyborgTosser. — Paleo  Neonate  - 06:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not the place to build authority for this term and what it represents. A Google Scholar search makes pretty clear that the academic literature has not adopted this term nor concept as a researchable notion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – This article is essentially being used to flog quack medical treatments. For notability, at least one independent secondary source is needed. The only proper citation that I could locate is, but that is a primary source. There is one review article  that cites the first source, but only briefly in the context of dehydration in different compartments and concludes that the proportion stays the same undercutting the importance cellular dehydration. Boghog (talk) 19:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * delete per nominators rationale JeanOhm (talk) 01:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete — Nothing plausible that Dehydration doesn't provide. Could even be considered a POV fork of dehydration.  — Paleo  Neonate  - 06:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete in its current form. The concept does exist as an unrecognized pseudo-illness along the lines of Leaky gut syndrome or Heavy legs, but any article on the topic would have to be rewritten from scratch to make it clear that this is an article about an alternative diagnosis promoted by health food stores and crank practitioners, not a genuine and recognized condition. For an article with traffic this low, it's really not worth anyone's time, and medical articles are a field where WP:RUBBISH is a valid argument for deletion as an incomplete article can be actively harmful and is consequently worse than no article at all. &#8209; Iridescent 08:18, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The three book references provided are self-help pseudoscience. Only one of them even mentions "chronic cellular dehydration". The fourth reference is generic recipe for rehydration. I could not find any suitable references that describe this topic. Ritz's paper is the closest, but that is a primary source. The phrase is so rare that it does not even qualify as a neologism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems like a content fork of dehydration. The first paragraph of the article could be used here as reason for why the article should be deleted.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * delete good lord this was created in 2004. seems well intentioned to debunk the concept but this is so fringe that not even our regular sources per PARITY like Gorski discuss this. Jytdog (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - we do not publish original research, nor do we recognize non-notable fringe theories, nor are we a place to describe pseudoscience, nor are we a free webhost for any rando on the Internet, nor are we a soapbox for advocates of ideas. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2017 (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.