Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proionic effect Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Proionic_effect

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. Tone 21:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proionic effect

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo. Reads like a recipe for snake oil using the same sort of language that you would see in a L'Oreal or Max Factor advert. I suspect that none of those (100% offline) references would stand up to scrutiny. Biker Biker (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete neither google nor google scholar show anything related. Suspect the title is a misspelling of "pro ionic effect", but that doesn't turn up any hits on google scholar either, so it is WP:bollocks imo Yoenit (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You have to wonder whether somebody is testing our nonsense detection abilities. Google has hardly heard of this term. It apparently offers boundless though vaguely defined health benefits, with a curious mix of fine detail and vague generalities: The proionic-care effect , consists in the interaction with biological tissues rebalancing their activity by acute mobilization of the ions. This mobilization is obtained with high technology devices that provide high frequency current at 448 kHz combining Capacitive and Resistive modes. This stimulation maintains the physiology of the living tissue and improves the cells metabolism.... I smell a duck. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is at the outer edge of WP:FRINGE, and in this light would need extraordinarily convincing sources to stay. --Pgallert (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as a hoax. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is pseudoscientific nonsense and does not belong on Wikipedia. ChemNerd (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any reliable sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (WP:CSD#G10: patent nonsense, backed up unrelated scientific material). -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G10 is for "Pages that disparage or threaten their subject". That isn't the case here. G1 is for "patent nonsense". However the article "Proionic effect" is not "patent nonsense". Indeed it does not meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake: I meant G1. It certainly reads like patent nonsense to me: "The proionic-care effect , consists in the interaction with biological tissues rebalancing their activity by acute mobilization of the ions. This mobilization is obtained with high technology devices that provide high frequency current at 448 kHz combining Capacitive and Resistive modes. This stimulation maintains the physiology of the living tissue and improves the cells metabolism." That's "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." -- Radagast 3 (talk) 14:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article is not "patent nonsense". The examples for "patent nonsense" under the description that you use include "word salad", "derailment" and "wall of text". None of these apply to the article. Indeed the article as it stands is plausible (and in my opinion understandable; I understand it, although I accept that it is full of jargon). If only there were reliable sources for it, it would justify clean-up, not deletion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:26, 14 June 2010 (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.