Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Biofrequency Chip

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 delete. Nakon 01:21, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biofrequency Chip

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Refs are not about the topic of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An article on a non-notable supposed 'therapy' clearly concocted to promote a particular device - the 'biofrequency chip' described on this company website [1] for which the term 'biofrequency chip' has been applied for as a trademark. [2] The description in our article closely mirrors the website, and the same sources are cited on both. Sources it should be noted which appear not to be discussing the 'chip', but instead the supposed or actual biological effects of electromagnetic fields. The claims of medical efficacy for the 'chip' entirely lack WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing, and as far as I can determine, there has been no published research on the efficacy of the 'chip' itself. Probably, I suspect because the supposed mechanism of action is so vague and ill-defined that such research would be impossible - see the pseudoscientific hogwash on the company website: [3]. Wikipedia does of course cover pseudoscientific supposed 'therapies' that have no support as evidence-based medicine, but we do so when their notability has been established through significant coverage of the actual subject matter of the article in mainstream reliable sources. Such notability has not been demonstrated. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete, this article references do not meet MEDRS, as they are not compliant by date and or source (primary). Furthermore, in some cases the source does not support the statement (sentence in the article in question), it is clear the outcome this article should take. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete - violates WP:PROMO - not WP:NOTABLE per MEDRS sources Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: The content in this article and most of the references are pseudoscience. Of course there are a number of published articles within Wikipedia that are pseudoscience and I don't believe in either (e.g. Reiki, magnet therapy, etc.). However worthless the therapies are, that doesn't mean the therapies don't exist. I think the articles references are weak but has merit and should stay, however it call it what it is - pseudoscience. Cajuncritic (talk) 15:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

note to Cajuncritic - your account was just created and your only edits are to this topic per your contribs. I just left some messages on your Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 16:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

delete. No evidence the topic is notable, none of the sources, reliable or no, seem to describe it and so establish its notability. The actual sourced content such as on energy medicine already has articles, so no need for this.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:11, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AndyTheGrump and everyone else above, the article is a transparent attempt to sell snake oil as legitimate medicine. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG; very little coverage in reliable sources. Esquivalience ^t 23:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Improve: One of the great things about the Wiki community is that anyone can contribute information which can make good articles great. I understand the easy and quick decision is to delete an article all together. However when given the choice to do what is right or do what is easy, most people want to do what is right. It is obvious I am not an expert on this topic or editing. My hope is that there is someone in the Wiki community that has more knowledge of this topic than I do who can improve it. That may require removing most all of the current content and contributing fresh information of greater value. Improving a lower quality article isn't easy, but I hope someone in the Wiki community has the ability to do what is right.Aenfinger (talk) 13:21, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It doesn't work like that. Wikipedia is absolutely not going to promote this non-notable pseudoscientific garbage. This is an encyclopaedia, covering subjects already discussed in depth in secondary reliable sources. If is not a platform for advertising newly-concocted quack 'therapies' based on nothing but bullshit. Sadly, there may be websites that permit the hawking of snakeoil, but Wikipedia isn't one of them. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aenfinger some are more gruff there than others. Perhaps i can translate. WP articles need to built from the ground up. Everything starts with "reliable sources" about the topic - the first thing you do when you want to create an article, or go to work improving one, is to find what we call "reliable sources." What a "reliable source" is, is defined in WP:RS generally, and for any content related to health, by WP:MEDRS. Both of those guidelines emphasize the importance of "secondary sources" (see the definitions in MEDRS, which are useful for all sciences - it basically is literature review articles, and not articles where research results are presented - those are "primary sources" and you should avoid them like the plague. As an example, one of the sources you used is a primary source (PMID 22011216 which is source 19 and the most cited reference in the article - and that paper was actually retracted (see PMID 23461727]). It should not have been used at all since it is primary but really should not have been used, since it was retracted. The article is full of problems like that. Another example - the very first reference doesn't mention "biofrequency chips" and it doesn't support the content it used for. I actually went looking, and found no review articles discussing biofrequency chips. What that means, is that are not even reliable sources to start building an article from. We have no where to go here, at this time. With time there might be review articles published that discuss them, but they don't exist now. (i found things like this PMID 20674588 - but that is really about Bioelectromagnetics more generally, and doesn't mention any specific devices). I hope that is helpful. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's already a Wikipedia page for Energy medicine that covers pseudoscience like this, including "biofields". The sources available for this separate article are too weak and scarce. Perhaps a redirect from biofrequency to that Energy medicine article would be appropriate.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of similar information in the energy medicine article and a redirect to this page makes sense - thank you Anythingyouwant. The specific and detailed information provided by Jytdog is fantastic and helpful. I appreciate the time you took to coach me further. I did remove the reference that was retracted and I'll look to see if there are other references that can replace some of the primary research. Many thanks! Aenfinger (talk) 22:11, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:PROMO and fails WP:GNG and lacks sources as per WP:MEDRS.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG PianoDan (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if there exist enough RS to have this page, in its current iteration it needs to be blown up because so many of citations don't back up statements made in the article. BakerStMD 00:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect: I was hoping that someone with a little more knowledge or access to better references on this topic would have contributed by now. Until better references and content is developed (or found), the article can be deleted but I didn't know if I am allowed to do that. Much of the content can be found on other pages already published in WP and it makes sense to use Anythingyouwant's suggestion to re-direct it to an existing article. The original suggestion is "energy medicine" which is good, but fairly broad. The characteristics of a biofrequency chip are actually a little more similar to biomagnetic therapy. If I am allowed to delete the page and redirect to biomagnetic therapy, I'm happy to do so. Thank you for your consideration. Aenfinger (talk) 00:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I can see no legitimate case for a redirect. None of the sources cited do anything to indicate that the term 'biofrequency chip' is actually used by anyone but an obscure company pushing pseudoscientific hogwash. Redirects are intended to assist readers in finding encyclopaedic content, and not to promote complete bollocks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete entirely (and DO NOT redirect). Sorry, but somebody locating better references is a forlorn hope. Given the absence of anything even tangentially coming close to being an adequate source for any mechanistic claim, the official retraction of the "main evidence" that is promulgated on the commercial product's website - [4], and the ongoing promotion of this commercial product's name - [5], I emphatically agree with the recommendation from AndyTheGrump: a redirect would be very inappropriate at this time. FeatherPluma (talk) 01:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, no redirect would be appropriate at "biofrequency chip". However, "biofrequency" gets about one hundred times the google hits as "biofrequency chip," so I don't see a problem with having a redirect at biofrequency which is a more general concept.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant suggestion Anythingyouwant. Biofrequency makes even more sense as a redirect. Thank you! Aenfinger (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Biofrequency already exists, and already redirects to Energy medicine: there is no problem with that. There is a problem with this commercial product, whose webpage deliberately or self-delusionally sets outs to package nothing into a pretty narrative with pretty pictures. If the proposal is amended to a double redirect from this article by way of biofrequency to energy medicine the answer for several reasons should be no. FeatherPluma (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2015 (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.