Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human voltage


 * 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 speedy delete per unanimity below -- The Anome (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Human voltage

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Speedy declined. This is an unsalvageable synthesis of original research, where is isn't outright a hoax. "The human body operates on a voltage anywhere from 10-100 mV." is the start of the nonsense, and it gets worse from there. Just because it's got little blue numbers in brackets doesn't mean the sources are being correctly used. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - Blatant misuse of book sources. Introduction to the anatomy & physiology of the nervous system lists 40 - 100mV as the potential difference across a cell membrane, not the voltage a human body operates on.  Differential Diagnosis of Acute Myocardial Infarction Caused by Electrocution indicates something completely different than what the article is saying: "Electrical injury can affect many organ systems, it seems that the damage results from the conversion of electrical energy into heat", while the article claims that damage is caused by electrical imbalance.  This is not salvageable. -- Stv  Fett erly  (Edits)  15:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete VSeems like just a hodgepodge of random bits of information marginally related to the subject which is then used in violation of synthesis.JoelWhy (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Synthesis of poorly understood information resulting into a parade of utter nonsense and misinformation. So. Preferably speedy. Anyone for snowballs? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol speedy vote.svg Speedy Delete None of this even seems to make sense in the contexts of what it is talking about. I think it is trying to characterize the human body as a circuit, but this is not mentioned in the sources it cites.--New questions? 19:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete As I have just nominated this article for prod I cannot logically speedy delete; but the article is essentially nonsense in a physiological sense if no other.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete It was fun to read - but utter nonsense. The writer appear to have major difficulties with even basic mathematical operations - yet throws around some advanced words. Probably someone had some fun Oxy20 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2012 (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.