Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senescent toxin


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:35, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Senescent toxin

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article for Bio Vision. The phrases "Senescent toxin" or "Senescent toxins" are not apparently used in the literature, a/c Google scholar, so it's simply their proprietary name  DGG ( talk ) 01:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:01, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * delete per nom. MicroPaLeo (talk) 21:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think the nomination statement is accurate. There is no evidence that Bio Vision (which ironically may actually be notable) has ever used this term - it doesn't appear on their website for example.  And the two sentences about the company have now been removed so it definitely isn't an ad for them anymore, and I doubt the company actually had anything to do with the article to begin with.  That said, the term "senescent toxin" seems to be an invention of the article author - it is not known anywhere outside Wikipedia and mirrors.  As such, this is original research and should be deleted on those grounds unless someone thinks the text could be used productively at Senescence or a related article.  Pinging  who accepted this at AfC for input. --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If it is unknown anywhere but on Wikipedia, why would the information be incorporated into an article? MicroPaLeo (talk)
 * The term is unknown, the information is not. --ThaddeusB (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Absolutely no usage of this phrase in the literature. The article itself doesn't make a lot of sense, and the references are at best loosely connected to the statements they supposedly support. It looks like a SCIgen creation. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention that BioVision does sell a Senescence detection kit - as do other similar vendors - but it's an ordinary lab reagent and doesn't have anything to do with whatever this article is talking about. Definitely not promotional on their account. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:08, 13 February 2015 (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.