| Revision as of 07:30, 27 February 2006 editIkkyu2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,883 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:34, 27 February 2006 edit undoIkkyu2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,883 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| ::It's clear that everything that was done was done in good faith. I think we agree it's better to let AfD's run their full 5 days though, unless consensus is crystal clear. -<font color="#2000C0">]</font> (<font color="#00FF00">]</font>) 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | ::It's clear that everything that was done was done in good faith. I think we agree it's better to let AfD's run their full 5 days though, unless consensus is crystal clear. -<font color="#2000C0">]</font> (<font color="#00FF00">]</font>) 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *censor? The entire web is filled with this crap. Search the term on google. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It could remain and be appropriately described which would only serve as debunking the con, and then it would be POV. Why should anyone have to devote time to debunking this? The "glyconutrient" crowd go out of their way to imply scientific validation where none exists. It is not appropriate to state something and provide a list of scientific articles as references when NONE of the scientific articles say anything even remotely close to what they are implied to say. That is FRAUD. The only reference you could provide for this is self-serving books written by the fraudsters or their websites. How is that appropriate? I just decided. I'm the second coming. Bow down to me. Worship me. Reference...ME! Clearly...POV. As is the term "glyconutrient" by it's very FRAUDULENTLY MANUFACTURED nature. <small>—''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> | *censor? The entire web is filled with this crap. Search the term on google. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It could remain and be appropriately described which would only serve as debunking the con, and then it would be POV. Why should anyone have to devote time to debunking this? The "glyconutrient" crowd go out of their way to imply scientific validation where none exists. It is not appropriate to state something and provide a list of scientific articles as references when NONE of the scientific articles say anything even remotely close to what they are implied to say. That is FRAUD. The only reference you could provide for this is self-serving books written by the fraudsters or their websites. How is that appropriate? I just decided. I'm the second coming. Bow down to me. Worship me. Reference...ME! Clearly...POV. As is the term "glyconutrient" by it's very FRAUDULENTLY MANUFACTURED nature. <small>—''The preceding ] comment was added by'' ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small><!--Inserted with Template:Unsigned--> | ||
| :These are strong arguments - for improving the article via consensus editing. They are not grounds for deletion. -<font color="#2000C0">]</font> (<font color="#00FF00">]</font>) 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | :These are strong arguments - for improving the article via consensus editing. They are not grounds for deletion. In particular, with your reference to "debunking," do you deny that "glyconutrients" are out there? No. Do you deny that books have been published about them? No. Since those things are true, why should you know about them, but not the Misplaced Pages reading public? You should also consider that not everyone shares your opinion of these theories, which fact is encyclopedic in itself. If disagreement with the content of an article were grounds for deletion, I'd nominate ] today - those guys were jerks. -<font color="#2000C0">]</font> (<font color="#00FF00">]</font>) 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 07:34, 27 February 2006
Glyconutrient
Glyconutrient(s) is a term coined and used by con-artists to bilk cancer patients out of their money. There is no such thing. Every last claim they make is bogus. Every scientific reference they list says something very different from what they imply it says. There is no way they should be allowed to use Misplaced Pages to try and give the topic more credibility. These charlatans repeatedly offer money support to the Society for Glycobiology and their offers are repeatedly refused because legitimate scientists would never allow themselves to be associated with this in ANY way. This article needs to be removed, and any opinion otherwise is self-serving and should be ignored. Stauffenberg 05:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Clean up and add to List_of_alternative,_speculative_and_disputed_theories.Bobby1011 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)- Clean up as per above.Animalfanatic04 05:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Merge or delete. As a biological engineer, I'm quite offended by the lack of science present in this article. "Cellular braille"? And I don't see how a "glyconutrient" differs from a carbohydrate. The assertion that glycosylation is part of genetic expression is ludicrous. Glycosylation is only important when you're building a glycoprotein. The sentence about "glyconutrition" makes me want to abandon my career path and become a forest ranger. At any rate, if this article is allowed to remain I strongly suggest that we merge it per Bobby1011. Compare with thermic effect of food, which at least states that there is no source rather than making something up.Isopropyl 06:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)- Redirect to Orthomolecular medicine. I've just noticed that glyconutrients already get a mention on the List_of_alternative,_speculative_and_disputed_theories as Orthomolecular medicine. Therefore we need only redirect this page to that one, and no rewrite is required. Bobby1011 06:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom and Isopropyl. Most of the "information" in this article is completely fraudulent. Not "alternative", not "speculative", not "disputed", but pure unadulterated bullshit. Whatever tiny pieces of the article are actually true can be merged by an expert into Glycoprotein, if said expert feels they're worth saving. Otherwise, nuke with extreme prejudice and salt the earth. --Aaron 06:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment. An attempt was made to close this AfD prematurely by Bobby1011 on 26.02.2006. There was no consensus to speedy anything. I've removed the inappropriate closure. -ikkyu2 (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Misplaced Pages content does not have to be true; it just has to be sourced (WP:V). There are plenty of quack theories on the Misplaced Pages; it is appropriate to include traditional scientific viewpoints on these theories in the article. (See IAHP and Orthomolecular medicine for examples.) What's not appropriate is to censor these articles wholesale. It's also definitely inappropriate to ram them through AfD with less than 24 hours up, and then close them with a "speedy redirect" when there was no consensus to do so
and I strongly censure the folks who attempted that.-ikkyu2 (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- In defense of Bobby1011, he actually posted a note on my talk page explaining to me why deleting this article is a disservice to the community. He qualified it using the same logic that you are using now, and probably closed/redirected when he saw the information was already available at another article. Don't be too harsh on him; though he might have acted prematurely, it was probably in good faith. Although I disagree with the article, I am changing my vote to a conditional keep provided that it gets overhauled. Isopropyl 06:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- It's clear that everything that was done was done in good faith. I think we agree it's better to let AfD's run their full 5 days though, unless consensus is crystal clear. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- censor? The entire web is filled with this crap. Search the term on google. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It could remain and be appropriately described which would only serve as debunking the con, and then it would be POV. Why should anyone have to devote time to debunking this? The "glyconutrient" crowd go out of their way to imply scientific validation where none exists. It is not appropriate to state something and provide a list of scientific articles as references when NONE of the scientific articles say anything even remotely close to what they are implied to say. That is FRAUD. The only reference you could provide for this is self-serving books written by the fraudsters or their websites. How is that appropriate? I just decided. I'm the second coming. Bow down to me. Worship me. Reference...ME! Clearly...POV. As is the term "glyconutrient" by it's very FRAUDULENTLY MANUFACTURED nature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stauffenberg (talk • contribs) .
- These are strong arguments - for improving the article via consensus editing. They are not grounds for deletion. In particular, with your reference to "debunking," do you deny that "glyconutrients" are out there? No. Do you deny that books have been published about them? No. Since those things are true, why should you know about them, but not the Misplaced Pages reading public? You should also consider that not everyone shares your opinion of these theories, which fact is encyclopedic in itself. If disagreement with the content of an article were grounds for deletion, I'd nominate Nazism today - those guys were jerks. -ikkyu2 (talk) 07:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)