Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial gills (human)

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 keep. L Faraone 03:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial gills (human)

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

This article describes a theoretical technology that has not even been attempted yet, may not be possible at all, and is at best in the realm of science fiction. It fails WP:Not_a_crystal_ball and has absolutely no notability to speak of whatsoever. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 15:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn by nominator due to new information and the recommendation for improved article sourcing and information.— Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 20:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though I agree with Falerin that this technology is under development and not yet possible, I disagree that this technology is in the realm of science fiction. As seen in the papers and abstracts that are cited, this very well could be practical in the foreseeable future. However, having said that, it is in large part the market that drives science and it does not seem from what has been cited that this is a huge priority to the public. If it were, any progress in this technology would have more coverage and more papers would be available showing its feasibility and eventual practical manifestations. For this reason, despite the possibility and development of artificial gills, I think it does not bear enough notability and should be deleted for now until it becomes more notable. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 21:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found many independent 1st class sources on the topic in seconds. These include the BBC, New York Times, New Scientist, LiveScience, various less notable magazines, lots of academic references and page upon page of on-topic hits on Google Books going back decades. Am I missing something here or is this a painfully obvious keep? Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Maury Markowitz is on point. Great amount of material. --Pusillanimous (talk•contribs) 23:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Pusillanimous - Maury Markowitz is correct. Jtowler (talk) 12:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The issue I see with that is that almost all of those articles concern Liquid Breathing systems which are at best inaccurately described as artificial gills (our own disambiguation page in fact states "An inaccurate term for liquid breathing breathing sets." or standalone systems that extract oxygen from seawater. While both might colloquially be termed "artificial gills" neither is actually artificial gills. While inventors may well have colloquially described liquid ventilation systems and oxygen extraction systems as artificial gills. None of them are actually mechanical and artificial replications of gills that can be installed in a human being and allow him to breathe water freely. They are in fact liquid breathing or extraction systems which belong in the appropriate spaces. To term them artificial gills is to encourage a misnomer and it is questionable that misnomer warrants an article beyond the correctly named articles for those topics which already exist. From what I can tell from the scientific literature which I have perused at length the prospect of true artificial gills is well off and would involve major changes to the human circulatory system. To be gills they need to be implantable similar to the artificial heart or artificial lungs not a segregate device. If there was a brand name product called "Artificial Gills" or if scientists were to uniformly accept that term for these devices I might see an argument for inclusion but neither of those things is true. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 17:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read the sources that Maury found and I was shocked that I did not see them before. My understanding of a liquid breathing system corresponds to oxygen-rich liquids, such as perfluorocarbons, filling a lung which then extracts oxygen from the fluid. My understanding of an artificial gill is a device that can extract oxygen from surrounding water whether or not the device is actually implanted into the human body. The New York Times article seems to describe the latter where components of hemoglobin and other oxygen-binding proteins are bound to a substrate and are functionally capable of removing oxygen from the surrounding water and releasing oxygen for use by the diver. If the Wikipedia article is improved with content and sources like that presented by Maury then I would change my mind and keep the article.—Σosthenes12 ^Talk 18:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]
Comment I would tend to concur. If the article can be adequately improved and appropriately sourced I would have far less issue than I have now. I suppose I withdraw my own nomination in light of expanding information. — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 18:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in light of sources found above. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: Can one of the closing admins close with Speedy #1? Nom has been withdrawn. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would self close but hesitate because there was a prior other delete vote other than my own by Sosethenes even if it was subsequently modified so technically according to AfD procedure I should not. I have however followed procedure and updated immediately beneath the nomination with my withdrawal — Falerin^{<talk>,<contrib>} 20:22, 29 May 2013 (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.