Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Immune system

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. jni 13:07, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Immune system
IMMUNE SYSTEM This page needs to be deleted because most of it is factually incorrect. Every sentence on the page is mistaken or misguided. Two examples: It talks about the alternative complement cascade as involving C2, C3, and C4. This is PLAINLY WRONG. It talks about the "B" in B-cells as meaning "Bone Marrow", Again this is WRONG. ALL blood cells originate in the bone marrow, not just B cells. It talks about not knowing how the immune system distinguishes "self" from "nonself". But we know EXACTLY how that happens. It talks about innate v. learned immune systems yet gets it wrong again.It talks about neutrophils completly incorrectly. It goes on and on and EVERY sentence contains a factual error or a misguided notion of what the immune system is. It is INCORRECT everywhere it puts words on the page. ANYONE can check this by looking at a good immunological reference text. Please, it is an Embarrasment to your organisation.
 * Note: VfD entry created by 211.28.241.136 --Plek 12:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Please see Peer review (listed), Pages needing attention (listed), Clean up (not listed) and Accuracy dispute (not listed)--ZayZayEM 12:49, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. In a situation where an article is about a clearly important topic, the only reason for deleting it and starting over from scratch is if the problems cannot be dealt with by the usual process of incremental edits: where the article is so bad that starting again from nothing would be better.  I don't see any reason why that would be so here.   If the anonymous user feels that the article is incorrect, he should simply edit it.  --BM 14:24, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Deleting the article won't help in getting its facts straight. Indeed, it will entirely hinder that. Furthermore, from inspecting the article's edit history I'm wondering whether that is in fact the intention.  The nominator's many edits show zero attempts to actually inject factual content into the article. Speedy Keep. Uncle G 14:41, 2005 Feb 6 (UTC)
 * Keep, VfD is not the place for problems with accuracy. &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 19:35, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, important topic. &mdash; RJH 19:37, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. If there are some mistakes or omissions then it needs improvement, not deletion. JoaoRicardo 19:56, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Important topic.  Needs improvment, not deletion.  Cleanup may or may not be necessary.--Theaterfreak64 20:17, Feb 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Then FIX it. Don't go THROWING around CAPS because you want it DELETED!  Sheesh, you sound like Sollog. Keep, obviously.  humblefool&reg; 20:29, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 211.28.241.136, please mind the Wikipedia immune system. Keep but expert input sorely needed. The immune system is one of the messiest in biology and scarcely understood. Hell, the paradigm changes every few years! JFW | T@lk  20:57, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep RustyCale 21:26, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. That VfD request bridges on the hysterical. jdb &#x274b; 00:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ahhh...look, I did in fact insert some factual elements into the page to illustrate the point...Please keep the page then, but make it a stem and start again. Believe me, what is there is utter rubbish. Completely misguided and misleading. ALL of it is mistaken. It is an extremely poor attempt to describe the immune system and reflects badly on Wikepedia. I have NO time to do it. Those in the Wikepedia organisation should be concerned about this type of garbage masquerading as fact and should be able to look after it themselves. But please in the interests of truth and reputation DO something about this page. I am an anonymous user who has no idea about how to be otherwise, I have no time for all of this, otherwise I WOULD do it myself. This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
 * If you have specific objections to the article, feel free to participate in the discussion on the article's discussion page. Rest assured, the article will be improved. The way Wikipedia works you can be sure of that; it just takes people like you and me to read the articles and fix any inaccuracies or bring up questionable material on the discussion page for further inspection, and it always takes time before an article flowers into a masterpiece. As for not being an anonymous user, just click "Create an account or log in" at the top right corner of the page, then type in a username and password and voilà, you're a Wikipedian! &mdash; &#1051;&#1080;&#1074;&#1072;&#1081; | &#x263a; 22:30, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Good lord, what a prima donna! If you really have NO time to contribute, where did you find the time to write a multi-paragraph denuncuation of the article? jdb &#x274b; 00:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Making personal attacks isn't helpful here. Kappa 01:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Er, I guess that was a bit overblown...heh. Apologies. jdb &#x274b; 04:54, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, important and notable medical topic, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 01:29, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep article seems to be in OK shape but it would be good if we could check details and expand. I would hope that this article could be fixed to feature article status.Capitalistroadster 08:59, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep The author of the VfD is mistaken on several points. --jag123 15:40, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep If it is full of holes, put it up for Pages Needing Attention or clean it up yourself max rspct 23:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. It does have problems but nothing that can't be fixed. --Lexor|Talk 03:29, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep And btw, I'm with jdb - "Those in the Wikepedia organisation" means him as much as anyone else, surely he realizes that? --KillerChihuahua 00:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator misunderstands Wikipedia's process.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 04:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * KEEP and ALLOW for ORGANIC growth AND expansion. VFD is NOT cleanup.  GRider\talk 18:50, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)