Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals


 * 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. A POV content fork of Free-radical theory, oxidative stress and antioxidant. This is clearly advertising masquerading as an encyclopedia article. The arguments of the single-purpose accounts created for this AfD are very unconvincing and I have blocked both User:Manifolda, User:Vichyu2 and User:Padiist for abuse of multiple accounts. The consensus seems to be to keep platinum nanoparticles, since this is a genuine and notable topic. However, it does require a serious re-write and this keep decision does not preclude a rapid re-nomination for deletion if it is not radically re-written. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals



 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Also nominated: Platinum nanoparticles

POV articles on fringe science. These are a promotional effort to make the supposed anti-aging benefits of Platinum nanoparticles better known, and the fact that you can easily achieve this by eating Platinum Gum (already deleted). Article is very scarce on scientific facts and big on unsourced and uncertain common knowledge. These are two spam articles disguised as a "comprehensive study". Fram (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I support deletion of the offending articles. They are clearly promotional and could lead to naive lay people reading these wikipedia articles and then trying to buy potentially dangerous items in the belief that they are "scientifically proven" the way the article is written.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  15:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Pretty clear POV essay. The very fact that it's titled "Comprehensive study" suggests that this is an original synthesis of information and violates WP:OR. (Wow, talk about an unnecessarily overly wikilinked article, too.) The platinum nanoparticle article is a bit more difficult, but on the balance, I think it should be deleted. The article is definitely fringe-oriented. None of the more outlandish claims are sourced. In fact, it looks to me like only the trivial claims in that article have sources. There are decent nanoparticle articles out there, like gold nanoparticles, but there isn't much in this article worth salvaging. eaolson (talk) 19:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals. It is unencyclopedic and the topic is best covered at aging and free radicals. The style of writing is also hopelessly irretrievable as a WP article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Platinum nanoparticles. It has some authoritative refs and will be a subject that is increasingly notable. It is already sufficiently notable to keep. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete both: just fringe theories completely unsourced.--Garrondo (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: we need an article on platinum nanoparticles--a notable, mainstream topic with thousands of scholarly references. But the current version of the article is not it. I'm not sure if it can be cleaned up or if it's just easier to delete and start from scratch. --Itub (talk) 09:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Platinum Nanoparticles & Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals as it has a reliable academic and scientific background, supported by laboratory examines, tests and researches. The correlation between aging, antioxidants, free oxygen radicals and the role played by Platinum Nanopartciles has been proved by a team of Japanese scientists and this is a patented research.

To attest the above mentioned, you can check out the link to the official site of the widely respected Scientific Journal : http://www.elsevier.com which provides its readers with  the patented scientific articles after thorough research and scientific proof  and publishes only the scientifically accepted articles.

Patented Article: "Effects of a potent antioxidant, platinum nanoparticle, on the lifespan of Caenorhabditis elegans"

Section where you can be able to download the patented article : MECHANISMS OF AGEING AND DEVELOPMENT

patent rights reserved with: Juewon Kim, Mayumi Takahashi , Takahiko Shimizu , Takuji Shirasawa , Masashi Kajita - a,, Atsuhiro Kanayama - a,2, Yusei Miyamoto- ,

( All the above mentioned authors are the active team members and reputed Scientists at the Department of Integrated Biosciences, University of Tokyo, Chiba, Japan b Research Team for Molecular Biomarkers, Tokyo Metropolitan Institute of Gerontology, Tokyo, Japan).

The access to the article is restricted, so if needed, I can provide you with the content of the full article which confirms the information, given by the author of the Wikipedia article.

Here you can study the abstract:

A B S T R A C T We have shown that platinum nanoparticles (nano-Pt) are a superoxide dismutase (SOD)/catalase mimetic. Various data have shown extension of the Caenorhabditis elegans lifespan by antioxidant treatment. The present study was designed to elucidate the survival benefit conferred by nano-Pt, as compared to the well-known SOD/catalase mimetic EUK-8. At 0.5 mM, nano-Pt significantly extended the lifespan of wild-type N2 nematodes and at 0.25 and 0.5 mM, nano-Pt recovered the shortened lifespan of the mev-1(kn1)mutant, which is due to excessive oxidative stress. In both instances, EUK-8 at 0.05, 0.5, and 5 mM did not extend nematode lifespan. Even when 0.4 M paraquat was loaded exogenously, nano-Pt (0.1 and 0.5 mM) and EUK-8 (0.5 and 5 mM) were effective in rescuing worms.

Moreover, 0.5 mM nano-Pt significantly reduced the accumulation of lipofuscin and ROS induced by paraquat. We measured the in vitro dose-dependent quenching of O2_ and H2O2, indicating that nano-Pt is a more potent SOD/catalase mimetic than EUK-8. Nano-Pt prolonged the worm lifespan, regardless of thermotolerance or dietary restriction. Taken together, nano-Pt has interesting anti-ageing properties. _ 2008 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Reason for keeping the Wikipedia articles: the information given is correct as it has a reliable scientific background (patented article, given on the mentioned website, approved by the competent  editorial committee ), so it can be edited later on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manifolda (talk • contribs) 12:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just wanted to make a couple of comments:
 * Scientific journals are not patented. Perhaps you meant copyrighted.
 * Elsevier is not a scientific journal, it is a publisher.
 * The correct link to the journal article in question is
 * The article is a single study on the lifespan of a particular species of roundworm. The claims of near-miraculous anti-aging properties of Pt nanoparticles in humans are completely unsupported by this article. eaolson (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  17:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the comprehensive assessment article as impossibly original research (essentially an essay) and a unecessary content fork. The platinum nanoparticles article, I would lean toward deletion, but keep and rewrite from scratch would also be an option. It will require a near-complete rewrite to comply with Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, appropriate sourcing, original research, and undue weight. MastCell Talk 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep (or rewrite) Platinum nanoparticles after cutting out all the ageing references and any controversial parts, as the basis for a scientific article. --Vendeka (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Platinum nanoparticles and Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals, because both articles are based on the scientific researches, which have particular results. These experimental results were achieved after various tests and can be used as an argument to consider the infirmation given here as unbiassed, impartial and reliable. Both articles should be kept, although hey can be marked as articles which can be edited / completed.  - Padiist (talk) 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note to closing admin: both editors wanting to keep the "comprehensive study" article are single purpose accounts, where one even created the other's user page. For all clarity, the other editors arguing to keep "platinum nanoparticles" ins ome form are not spa's at all, so this note is solely about the "comprehensive study" part. Fram (talk) 07:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep the articles

The author of the article over-enthusiastically did mention a few commercial products like chewing gum (Platinum chewing gum — Russian chewing gum, Nanogum-Japanese chewing gum, cosmetics (anti-wrinkle cream— a Paris based cosmetic manufacturer Loreal ,is the only one product that is presently in market) , sunscreen lotions etc.

It would be naive of us to think and delete the articles thinking that a single person could be in charge of so called propaganda or advertising for all these international brands. I think this is untrue.

I sincerely believe that this issue has popped up due to the over enthusiasm to provide maximum information by the author.

But realizing his / her genuine mistake, the author has sincerely edited and deleted that part of the article.

In Comprehensive study of aging and free radicals the aging and actions of reactive oxygen species is linked, there is a huge amount of credible data regarding anti-oxidants, scientifically proven causes of free radicals (that is not present even in the wikipedia) and so on and so forth. This article is very informative and is attested with credible references and links.

Platinum nanoparticles Though a lot of research is still being carried out on this subject, the article is informative, scientific and is supported by scientific references and external links. - Vichyu2 (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comprehensive study... is a great title for a dissertation, but it's the wrong approach for an encyclopedia article. And we already have articles on aging and on free radicals, as someone pointed out. --Itub (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2008 (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.