Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rat-Cigarette Lifespan Theory

Rat-Cigarette Lifespan Theory

Rat-Cigarette Lifespan Theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• 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.