Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rat-Cigarette Lifespan Theory


 * 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   deleted (Has been G3'd). The Bushranger One ping only 07:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Rat-Cigarette Lifespan Theory

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced article that cannot be verified by readers and doesn't demonstrate how the subject is notable. Various Google searches fail to show any mention of the theory, which is unexpected if it has been through multiple peer reviewed journals and has become an accepted theory in the field of criminology. Prod removed without comment, so bringing here for discussion. Sparthorse (talk) 20:11, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Countless research has been conducted on the effects cigarette smoke has on lab mice. The research was applied to criminology and it is indeed a valid theory. The fact that it is controversial doesn't make it invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) 20:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — L3ssm4n (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The issue is not whether it is controversial, but whether you can prove it exists by citing sources. I am baffled that there is "countless research", but I cannot find a single reference of any sort via searching on the web. You are obviously familiar with the research. Could you cite some of it, please? Without cited sources, there is no way to verify any of this, so it cannot be included in Wikipedia. Thanks, Sparthorse (talk) 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Since it is relatively new research and has recently been the subject to peer review, the amount of content available using search engines is relatively miniscule. Until more is published on the theory, it is better to use a database rather than a search engine. Good luck in exploring this theory further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) — L3ssm4n (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * So, can you supply even a single source, or not? If not, the article will likely be deleted. If this is a new theory, then wait until it has been published and sources are available before creating an article about it. Also, if its so new that it hasn't been published yet, how is it an "accepted theory in the field of criminology" as stated in the article? Sparthorse (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As stated earlier, if you wish to contribute to the article in order to make it more complete, I advise that you use a database for more information. This is exciting new research in the field and will likely be included in most introductory textbooks in the next year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) 21:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — L3ssm4n (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * KIWF Patent nonsense. Greglocock (talk) 21:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, leaning speedy delete as apparent hoax. The theory was developed by Les Nessman?  Really?  Last I heard, he was living on the air in Cincinnati.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete (as nominator). Given the exchange with the author of the article L3ssm4n, above, I now believe that there is a very strong likelihood is this is a blatant hoax. Further google searches for the theory itself and the supposed authors turns up nothing at all. The author's username suggests he is probably the "Lester Nessman" mentioned in the article. Sparthorse (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously those who are opting for deletion are not in the field of criminology nor any other kind of academia. "Google searches" are not a reliable way to find scholarly articles. The article just requires people with time to apply the proper sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — L3ssm4n (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete Nothing to show this isn't a WP:HOAX. Either that or the creator is just lazy Tigerboy1966 (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously not a hoax. Credible research has been conducted on rats using tobacco smoke for decades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) 23:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - A hoax with no evidence to the contrary. --Madison-chan (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - The claimed propoents of the theory do not appear to exist in academic literature Clovis Sangrail (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Everyone needs to remember that Wikipedia isn't a soapbox. We must remain nonobjective when marking articles for deletion, regardless of our feelings about the use of animals in academic research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) 23:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC) — L3ssm4n (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Nice troll. Does nonobjective mean what you think it means? Greglocock (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from attacking people. Read the guidelines before posting anything to Wikipedia.  I also think Sparthorse has a strange definition of "baffled."  I don't think he knows what that word really means and find it detestable that he feels that way about seeing articles without sources.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3ssm4n (talk • contribs) 00:38, 17 November 2011 (UTC)  — L3ssm4n (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment: Now I'm not taking sides, but I do want to mention that every article on Wikipedia needs to have reliable sources in order to remain on this website. To my knowledge there are no exceptions to this rule because notability means that there will be reliable sources to prove this in some context somewhere in the world. Your job is to find those resources and add them to the page. WP:RS Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not enough reliable sources Could be a hoax. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2011 (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.