Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regeneration therapy


 * 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. If anyone feels that there was WP:MEDRS-compliant content that needs to be merged into stem-cell therapy where the topic can be adequate covered I will email the deleted text for such use. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Regeneration therapy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Topic is already dealt with at stem cell therapy. Redirect there. No proper refs here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Topic appears to be a mixture of stem cell therapy and some other more fringe synthesis to the topic, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete: Content fork of Stem cell therapy mixed with non-notable and unreliably sourced fringe nonsense. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete: If there is any content that complies with WP:MEDRS (none that I could see), it can be properly incorporated into Stem cell therapy. I've dropped a note about this debate on the Stem cell therapy talk page. --RexxS (talk) 19:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: I created this article and labeled it Stub in order to get a positive cooperation elucidating the whole range of regeneration therapies. I hoped experts on the topic could provide research evidence against the electromedical methods. But now it seems censorship without research evidence is the practiced wiki way. Is stem cell therapy the only method that may be mentioned? OlavN (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The "practised wiki way" is to get rid of unsourced personal speculations because they can't be verified. Try finding sources first and writing articles based on them. --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'd like to see an article on this, that is not about stem cells. Is there at least one secondary reference? The third paragraph of the article is not clearly written, and can easily be misinterpreted. Sidelight 12 Talk 22:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The article should make it clearer that it hasn't happened yet, but the possibility of such therapy has been repeatedly discussed, and references could be aded. I think we could even find sourcea for satisfying MEDRES somewhere in the extensive review literature on stem cells & related topics, not that I think MEDRES really applies to this sort of article.  DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The article should make clear that it hasn't happened, period (WP:CRYSTAL?). And then references must be added - they are not optional. There's a perfectly good article on Stem cells if you want to write about them, instead of creating an unsourced POV content fork. Whoever closes this ought to note that by project-wide consensus WP:RS tells us that WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical assertions and sources used to support a medical claim - and anybody who thinks "Regeneration therapy is a therapy for stimulating the regrowth of an amputated or destroyed body part" isn't a medical claim needs to find out how to use an English dictionary. --RexxS (talk) 00:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your statement "but the possibility of such therapy has been repeatedly discussed" is not falsifiable since you do not indicate what sources you are talking about. Is this based on your own personal feelings? I also agree with RexxS that the claim that MEDRS doesn't apply to a purported therapy to be an odd statement. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:08, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:18, 30 April 2013 (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.