Blood electrification article is up for deletion by deletionists
I noticed that you were primarily interested in alternative medicine / health. I have copy-pasted this next text from something I sent to someone else's talk page too... If you are interested, please read on...
The argument is being used that Blood electrification has not been publicized in the mainstream media or scientific / medical journals sufficiently so is "not notable" a.k.a. WP:notability.
Also they claim that patent documentation is not a reliable source and then never check the documents to see if these patent docs cite scientific journal articles as part of their basis for patent claims. Thereby, none of these deletionist contributors want to enhance the article by providing any WP:RS reference links. Furthermore, waves of these editors edit the article with different mindsets / agendas as to what they consider acceptable coverage and scope of WP:RS references usable, otherwise even WP:RS sources are deleted as having been seen by individual editors as being associated, but not exactly addressing specifically microcurrents, or blood, or specific pathogen types, or magnitude of parameters used, and so on. The article is trimmed down so much that it shrinks to non-existence--as is the initial intent by these editors with any bioelectric alternative medicine articles since their point of view (POV) is that electromedicine is quackery without exception.
Voting is done by following the deletion tag link and contributing to the deletion voting discussions. You can read the article, examine the article history, view earlier versions, view / contribute to the talk page for Blood electrification, then visit the Articles for deletion page (Afd page) for the article linked from the tags placed on the article.
All of the mainstream scentist and medical type people are voting for deletion as is their usual thing with alternative medicine pieces. Your input would be welcome. Oldspammer (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)