Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NeoSENS
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NeoSENS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article consists entirely of original research (WP:SYN). --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. I looked over this article very carefully, including the references cited. I agree with Phenylalanine that this is textbook synthesis. None of the citations are about the concept of "neoSENS". In fact, I can find no reliable reference to this at all. The author of the article (User:Prometheus1) is, according to the copyright notice on the image and article's text, the inventor of the phrase/concept of "neoSENS". In the article's talk page, the author of the article claims this all came from a thread on the Immortality Institute's online forum, which is not a reliable source at ALL. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 03:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do Not Delete. This article is sourced from publications in the online forum Immortality Institute in a discussion that started in 2005, spanned over 2 years and included the participation of the SENS author, Aubrey de Grey. It is of historical import and presents a significant scientific counterpoint. prometheus1 (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Online forums do not represent a reliable source. Also, it appears that Dr. de Grey chimed in to tell you your theory was bunk. Now, please explain to us how your theory, which has never been published in an academic paper, has never been peer reviewed, and hasn't been accepted by anyone in the scientific community, is not original research? -- ShinmaWa(talk) 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact of the matter is that the ideas presented were extant in the scientific literature already. Consequently it is not original research. The references are at the bottom of the page. Moreover, de Grey said in that forum, "You may well be right about the motivation to transform discoveries into interventions, and that is why I pay attention to ongoing discoveries. In the absence of said discoveries, however, I focus on other interventions -- ones that can already be (a) designed and (b) predicted to have a fair chance of being beneficial, either on their own or jointly with other SENS components." That was his opinion, and the crux of the discussion was whether SENS was focused on the right type of science. Where are you coming from with the term "bunk"? That is as telling as it is rude. Care to explain yourself? Or should we get somebody impartial here? prometheus1 (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm as impartial as they come. I probably shouldn't have mentioned my interpretation of the tone of Dr. de Grey's responses, as his opinion (positive or negative) is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I apologize for the noise. I'll admit up front that I don't know anything about this subject matter and don't have an opinion one way or another about its veracity. I also, honestly, don't care. However, I do know Wikipedia's policies. What you are referring to -- using pre-existing research to come up with a new idea (NeoSENS) -- is called synthesis. This is not allowed on Wikipedia. Unless you can quote a reliable source that specifically uses the term "NeoSENS" and describes precisely what this article relates, then this is original research. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The source is the forum. What do you mean by reliable? Are you questioning whether the discussions took place or not? prometheus1 (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What we mean by reliable sources, no original research, and synthesis was linked to above. Please read the pages on reliable sources, self-published sources, no original research, and synthesis. I've said all I can on this, really. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 13:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The source is the forum. What do you mean by reliable? Are you questioning whether the discussions took place or not? prometheus1 (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm as impartial as they come. I probably shouldn't have mentioned my interpretation of the tone of Dr. de Grey's responses, as his opinion (positive or negative) is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I apologize for the noise. I'll admit up front that I don't know anything about this subject matter and don't have an opinion one way or another about its veracity. I also, honestly, don't care. However, I do know Wikipedia's policies. What you are referring to -- using pre-existing research to come up with a new idea (NeoSENS) -- is called synthesis. This is not allowed on Wikipedia. Unless you can quote a reliable source that specifically uses the term "NeoSENS" and describes precisely what this article relates, then this is original research. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact of the matter is that the ideas presented were extant in the scientific literature already. Consequently it is not original research. The references are at the bottom of the page. Moreover, de Grey said in that forum, "You may well be right about the motivation to transform discoveries into interventions, and that is why I pay attention to ongoing discoveries. In the absence of said discoveries, however, I focus on other interventions -- ones that can already be (a) designed and (b) predicted to have a fair chance of being beneficial, either on their own or jointly with other SENS components." That was his opinion, and the crux of the discussion was whether SENS was focused on the right type of science. Where are you coming from with the term "bunk"? That is as telling as it is rude. Care to explain yourself? Or should we get somebody impartial here? prometheus1 (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete - per nom --T-rex 20:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.