Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intrinsic plasticity


 * 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 merge to Nonsynaptic plasticity. (non-admin closure) Lourdes  04:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Intrinsic plasticity

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No indication of notability. Zero sources. Written as a promotional essay. Phrases like "It is important to note that..." have no place in an encyclopedic article. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What or who is the article promoting? And did you check out the Google Scholar results as I suggested when I removed the PROD tag? Or the Google Books results, the first of which is a 291-page book on the subject from a university press? I'm not going to try adding references to the article, because this is not one of my fields of expertise, but it's pretty obvious that a Wikipedia article on this topic is long overdue. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The first page of Google results for the term suggests this is a genuine topic of neuroscience; see here, here, and here, for starters. I don't think you have to be a neuroscientist to recognize that the current article stinks and needs a big cleanup but the subject seems entirely valid.  A  Train ''talk 16:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep based on GNG and the sources discussed above.  Additionally, 's lack of understanding of WP:PROMO and WP:NOTCLEANUP is starting to become a disruptive pattern.  --  1Wiki8 ........................... (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'm sure that this editor's actions are not deliberately disruptive but they are objectively so. Someone needs to have a word, but I would prefer it not to be me because the reaction to being told such things by an unregistered editor tends to be to dispute my credentials rather than take note of what I say. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * merge to Synaptic plasticity - this article is completely unsourced and should not be live like this. It can be developed there and if it gets too big it can be split out.
 * It was already improved with references and internal links and should continue to be developed. It is clearly a topic that is different from synaptic plasticity. Please read the text before you comment. It clearly states that intrinsic plasticity (IP) is different from synaptic plasticity (SP). The term cannot be found, becasue if you want to know about IP youwon't even think of looking up SOP. There is neural plasticity, which is a term for both. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:86:4B21:7F01:BDAE:6F3A:E17E:7D2A (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It has exactly one ref that is 11 years old for one small bit. There is no reason for this article to exist like this.  It should have just been added to Synaptic plasticity; it should not have been created in main space like this, where it was entirely unsourced, and still is almost entirely unsourced.  Our mission is to present accepted knowledge to readers and what we have here is what some anonymous editor wrote down out of what was in their head.  Newbies do that; this is how we fix it so that readers don't get exposed to this unverified ... thing. Jytdog (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would also support userifying this or draftifying it; it is just not ready for mainspace. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The whole point of Wikipedia being a wiki is that articles are improved collaboratively in mainspace rather that hidden in user or draft space where nobody other than the creator will find them. As I said above I have no particular expertise is this field but I do have enough general knowledge to know what a neuron is and what a synapse is, so can understand that content about what goes on within a single neuron doesn't belong in an article about anything synaptic. And there are no medical claims in the article, so the higher standards that we have for medical articles don't apply here. The way that we fix articles about topics that belong here is to edit them, not to delete them. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The standards for biological research are pretty much the same; it is the same literature to a great extent and all that literature shares the same problems. If you don't understand that please see an essay I wrote called WP:Why MEDRS? Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep .(see below) The topic is clearly notable, and nothing in what Jytdog said above gets anywhere near convincing me that there is any reason why this article should be an exception to the normal Wikipedia process of being edited in mainspace to improve it. As I said before, this describes non-synaptic processes, so merging it to an article about synaptic processes would be simply bizarre, and there is nothing here that means that the article qualifies for higher-than-normal standards demanded by such policies and guidelines as WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to nonsynaptic plasticity. The topic of plastic changes in neural systems different from synaptic plasticity is of course a big topic in neuroscience and we have a well developed article on the topic at nonsynaptic plasticity. The current article, or at least its refs, discuss briefly some aspects of the same topic. Hence a merge or redirect to that article would best serve our readers. --Mark viking (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to nonsynaptic plasticity, as Mark has found that we already have an article on the topic. Well spotted! 86.17.222.157 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * But my efforts are disruptive.... -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 15:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Your efforts here were very different from those of Mark viking. I can see that you are editing in good faith, and are willing to be thoughtful about what you are doing, so I would prefer it if you were to work out for yourself why they are different rather than have me spell it out. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge or redirect to nonsynaptic plasticity. Redundant article on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2016 (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.