Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverse Warburg effect

Inverse Warburg effect

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

A seemingly fringe topic that appears to mainly been covered in non-reputable sources. Was deleted yesterday under G11, and had a G11 tag today before I removed it so that the article could get a wider discussion. Pinging Jytdog who tagged the article for deletion yesterday. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, does https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10522-013-9479-7 count as a reputable source? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It probably does, which is why I sent the article to AfD rather than let the CSD tag in it stay (the current revision does not appear to be promotional anyway). As I'm not very familiar with the subject I don't actually have an opinion at all on the article's notability: consider this nomination to be procedural. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source, and it meets WP:MEDRS's requirement for a review article. However, it fails the notability requirement for being independent of the subject of the page, in that the authors of the source are also the authors of most of the work proposing this theory. Thus, it would serve well as a source for a mention within a page on a broader topic, but it does not establish notability for a standalone page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per my nomination when I speedied this, which was along the lines of -- this is a fringey theory, the direct references for which are the few people who are working on it. The other refs are used as they are in a scientific paper, where content based on them is strung together to make an argument. In WP this is WP:SYN. The original article appeared to me to be an effort to use WP to publicize and lend validity to the theory and its immediate recreation only supports that notion. We are not a vehicle for that per WP:PROMO. Jytdog (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your exact wording in the db tag was: Article exists to publicize and promote a fringe scientific theory; actual supported is via refs of the proponents of that theory. Other refs are used as they would be in a scientific paper where arguments are made supported each step of the way with primary sources but the argument itself is not supported; in WP this is WP:SYN. Very likely created under COI/SELFCITE as the creator is a SPA per Special:Contributions/RobertCumming and username = author name of one of the papers. Thus the motivation for PROMO." — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jytdog. Replace with a redirect to Warburg effect#Alternative models. Protect the redirect. Block Hasperasperagus (talk · contribs) as a sock puppet of RobertCumming (talk · contribs). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sock/promo issue is a valid consideration in this AfD, but the rationale for a sock-block is weak, because the master account has not edited for two years, and the new account has only edited this year. But otherwise, I agree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protect-redirect, per RHaworth. It seems to me that the sourcing is strung together as WP:SYNTH as described by Jytdog, and that the scientific sourcing that is not synth is pretty much from one research group, and thus fails the notability requirement for sourcing that is independent. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The comment 'sockpuppet' is totally unwarranted. I have never met or been in contact with Robert Cumming. I am a research scientist at a European Institution who is a co-author of the article referenced [7], which describes our independent discovery of the Inverse Warburg effect in Parkinson's Disease. - Moreover, other independent research groups, in particular ref. [6] and [17], have described the Inverse Warburg effect in their investigations. Hence, at least three distinct research groups are actively working on the topic. - Neurodegenerative diseases, in particular Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, are of singular importance. It is not a fringe issue. The topic is contoversial. The Inverse Warburg Effect, as is evident by reactions of various sources in Europe and the US, may indeed be a breakthrough in this field of research. Our own research activities have convinced us of the significance and the wide applicability of the concept. This is our primary motive for amending and elaborating on the entry submitted by Robert Cumming. In doing so, we think we are serving the public interest, there is no "CoI". Hasperasperagus (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2017 (UTC) Hasperasperagus[reply]