Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electro-magnetic therapeutic system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. — Scientizzle 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Electro-magnetic therapeutic system

Electro-magnetic therapeutic system (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable invention. Also not likely the most common use of the term, as a TENS would qualify as matching that name. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I am the sole contributor to this page: In light of this... (Since no one has added anything constructive except for DEL, PROD, SPEEDY DEL (administrative things and templates) I ask that the content be moved and that the original title be deleted. So that I can continue working on it I ask that it be move to user:CyclePat/Rhumart. This idea is in line with Wikipedia's Policy of Speedy Deletion section G7... again, I ask that the page be Move to my user-page (to maintain my edit summary) and that the original page be deleted.--CyclePat (talk) 22:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Keep. Please see discussion on talk page regarding notability. The device is more commonly called Rhumart as clearly portrayed in the patents image section (which are b.t.w. also registered in Foreign Countries, which may explain your question of confusion regarding its difference of appearance from the US patent and the Canadian patent. Note: The inventors are Canadian, perhaps we could assume that their initial patent was filled here in Canada and subsequently, most likely with further clarity and developement, in other countries.) Furthermore I would like to point out that Wikipedia has a precedent for Water fuel cell (Meyer's water car invention) which is being kept. The consensus there is that, even though there exists other devices which are even called "Water fuel cell", they are not the same device. More specifically, Water fuel cell, unlike this article, actually has a conflict in the name because there are other devices that function differently or do something almost entirelly different then Meyer's Water Fuel but have the same name. In our case the "Electro-magnetic therapeutic system" is not at all the similar to the TENS device. (Maybe having something similar is the fact that they are both devices that claim to help in healing to human body... but how many such devices are there for that? And should we begin putting ECG with EKG (oops! I mean Defibrillation)? This nomination is not only premature but totally unwarranted given the fact that a PROD discussion was clearly on its ways to proving the fact that there are "other" external references (not just patents). Hence again, I believe this article should be kept and allowed the chance to explain, not only it's name but the various other names such as Rhumart or the US Patent name, or the various news articles (though I will translate from french) --CyclePat (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The consensus there is that Meyer's device is notable, whether or not it works. The notability of this device is in question, whether or not it works.
    The PROD discussion was by you, and didn't seem to me to be on its way anywhere.
    And the US patent and Canadian patent do not seem to be on the same concept.
    The French (language) news articles might provide the necessary evidence of notability. Then again, they might not.
    — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Please See WP:BEFORE, and WP:NOTABILITY, which I belief link somewhere to the idea that a subject doesn't necessarily have to be famous but simply need to have "external sources" 3rd party sources. If you take a look at Electromagnetic therapy you will notice a link to a peer-reviewed article which studied this device. Or simply take a look at google scholarly for Rhumart (as per the talk page of this article) --CyclePat (talk) 07:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the result is delete, consider userfying, as there is no real claim against this article except notability and possibly WP:NEO. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, no indicators of notability of this device. Primary sources only. Talk page discussion is blatantly speculative. --Dhartung | Talk 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not every patent is notable. This article tells us little more than some kind of electro-magnetic medical invention was patented. As such, it is profoundly deficient in both context, and is a very brief article without significant content, and is borderline speediable. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - for all the reason covered by Smerdis. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete no independent vereification of notability. `'Míkka>t 15:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Lacks independent secondary-source coverage; patent applications are a primary source and are a notoriously poor substitute for secondary-source coverage and scientific information. It could be userfied temporarily to allow a search for secondary-source coverage. MastCell Talk 16:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Please take note of the history section development (March 26th 2008). It now demonstrates and contradicts most of your statements. Take for example the link with the Rhumart system which shows that the discussion on the talk page is no longer speculative. There will soon be another development for all the other device names which have been built by Dr. Drolet. Once this is complete I believe we will be able to see how this device was not only developed but how it has changed names throughout history and is now considered a device that has much "independent" secondary sources. Just to tease you on this, a now proven fact within the article, the Rhumart was the common name for this device and it has several independent 3rd party sources, one of which is actually peer-reviewed and is utlized in the article Electromagnetic therapy. --CyclePat (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Re-worded and posted --CyclePat (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
p.s.: This development of information will soon contradict Arthur Rubin's statement which allude to the fact that the US patents have no' relationship with the Canadian patents. --CyclePat (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
p.p.s.: I think there may actually be more 3rd party information on the inventor. Nevertheless:
  • Here you will find the Seattle Radio station KRWM 106.9FM-HD3, having done a full broadcast on the the Rhumart (In 2006).[1]
  • Here you will find that peer-reviewed article I was talking about.[2]
  • Here you will find a third a court trial... (hummm does this sound like Water fuel cell article) However in this case the trial appears to be for a patent infringement case. (Available on University of Montreal's, Honorable Lexum Law Database) [3] Apparently it made it to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC)(Unlike the almost unheard of Water Fuel Cell).(See reference from SCC here). Here you will find a french Abstract withing the lawyers journal (perhaps the superior court of Quebec?)[4]
  • Here you will find the device for sale on a website.[5] And on sale here at "l'Association des paraplégiques du Québec" (I think that's a reputable organisation!)
  • Here we go... I found it. Industry Canada's Listing for the company making the links to all the new names and the company "SEM Electronique" (that's french Quebec name! b.t.w. a 5 million dollar company). This page makes the link between the Ultimag.[6]
  • Here is a list of what appears to be peer-reviewed research, some of which deal with the Rhumart (the term appears about 5 times in this German study).[7]
  • Apparently here is that link to the US patent which is called Rhumart.[8]
  • Here is an article which talks about skepticism.[9](Google Translation to English)
  • Here is the World Intellectual Property Patent application.[10]
  • Here is a blog, actually spelling it out, that the machine is quite popular in Quebec. And attempting to compare to the Nikken machine.(interesting given the fact it was apparently invented there!)[11]
  • Here is a news article on a workshop for the Rhumart.[12]
  • This is a report from a hotel regarding business meeting held for/by Rhumart.[13]
  • Here is a biography of a news reporter who has supposedly written some articles on the "Rhumart affair?"[14] (Further research is needed to find the articles... humm... 3rd Party sources?)
  • I may be repeating myself here but here is a link to Gary Null's study on EMF pulsed products. He mentions the Rhumart in this pdf.[15]
  • I had to put this in (I'm not sure if I did yet...). Here is the US Patent.[16]
  • Here is a third party claim regarding a book by Dr. Drolet (or maybe two) that was to be "forth coming".[17]
  • Here is a story from a seller and how he sold 173 devices in Quebec (at 5477$ ea.). Though I doubt we can use this information as a direct citation I'm pretty sure it can be verified with the reliable patents. (As I did with the Rhumart name). In his story he indicates that one of the newer devices is called "Theramag". (note: Ultimag was also another name which I've proven with the aformentioned IC listing).[18]
And remember this is a device from the 1980's (let’s see you try and find information on the Sony Television from the 80s) Back then there was no real internet. I think we will find much document at the national archives (Canadian) in paper format. Why not just admit it... your vote for Delete is simply because you consider my almost mocking attitude towards the Speedy, Prod, etc... and/or Wikipedia process, as well as my methodology towards article to be offensive to your beliefs. No one likes to be proven wrong and I have done this in a strait forward and bordering WP:DICK attitude. Right? (nodding) Right! Again... (if I didn't say it, well then... here it is for the first time) Please don't kill the article in it's infancy. All it needs is a litle work to get all these sources properly formated per Wikipedia's guidelines of WP:CITE et all. I'm sure you can tell this article can expand to include what is necessary and address the aforementioned concerns. b.t.w.: What ever happened to WP:AGF and that I would eventually get all this information into the article. It's a sad day for Wikipedia if this is what most editors experience. --CyclePat (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
p.p.p.s: If you are thinking of doing a google search for Rhumart don't really bother since the above facts are pretty much a summary of the 145 hits on google which can be found here.(Ironically the last fact, the vendor who sold 173 units, I think, may prove to be the most useful for finding more resources) --CyclePat (talk) 04:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
summary of my comment: Maybe I could make this clearer. This device is quite notable within the Quebec region. There are 3rd party sources. Also, I'm indeferent if we call this article Dr. Drolet, Rhumart, etc... --CyclePat (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per the sources listed above. Most of them don't confer notability, but the peer-reviewed article should be of particular note, as well as the news bits. Celarnor Talk to me 10:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Alternative !vote as nominator, Merge to electromagnetic therapy. Notability under the current name is questionable, as it's almost impossible to tell whether all the references given here (note, not in the article or the article talk page) refer to the same device. However, even if not notable in itself, the patents and some commentary seem suitable for that article, and the redirect could easily stand on its own, even if it were nothing to merge. The fact that the inventor is alive and currently marketing the devices means we need to be exceptionally careful to see if any of the references, even in peer-reviewed journals, are paid ads. I have not gone through the new list of two dozen references to check. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
*"I disagree": In fact I believe if this AFD is ridiculous. However to simply build a straw man, or to prove a point I think we should nominate the different article, Electromagnetic therapy for AFD? (no I don't believe that... But if you think this article should be deleted then you must think the other does too? --CyclePat (talk) 06:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a bit obvious that this article should not and should never have been at this name. I still think the notable aspects of this article might be included in the other. I don't think the other article is sane, but it seems notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Update: I've recently updated the article and also notified (yesterday or the day before) most of the users that "voted" delete. Heck! The device is even noted in as a Legal Precedence from the Supreme Court of Canada as setting out the Canadian "test for patent infringement" and "the principales of purposive claim construction". How much more notable can you get? Surelly it's a notable subject! Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 21:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  • delete Based on the current version of the article, there is no indication the device itself is notable. There are no secondary sources. If the patent case is notable, the article about it would go under the name of the legal case. DGG (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI. You may have missed the update I did... There is a wikipedia article related to this at Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc.. Anyways... Wikipedia:Notability set’s out the guidelines for Notability. A subject is presumed to be sufficiently notable if it meets the general notability guideline. Here is the test: Test 1: “If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable.” The question you must ask yourself is does this article have sources that are independant of the subject? If yes! Then it is notable... if no... then surelly it isn't. In this case, I've listed a bunch of sources which appear to be significant coverage in reliable sources. --CyclePat (talk) 05:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Please take a careful look at citations (endnote #1 in particular) of WP:N and then please try to explain why you would beleive "http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2000/2000scc66/2000scc66.html SCC Trail] would not be a notable? --CyclePat (talk) 06:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see above comment. I've asked that the page be userfied! --CyclePat (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No independent notability; the Canadian court case, on the other hand, is clearly notable and is covered in Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc. Any wikipedia reader /editor is of course free to create a local copy of the article on their computer. Abecedare (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
comment: I'm mad. And they say when you're emotional you sometimes do rash things. Well, I don't know if this is a good thing or not, but I do see what you guys are talking about as not being published in other sources. It appears most of the sources... I guess the court trial could even be deleted because it to was a process brough on by a non third party (self created news... right?). Kind of like if I go build a Water fuel cell and makes a press release... Or if you where some murderer and the only notability was your local newspaper (from the 1980s) and the Trial transcript that made it to the Supreme Court. I guess according to most of the above comments that would be "non notable" because frankly it's something you did yourself or brough on! (Let's agree to disagree on this!) Kind of like the idea that this invention was somehow the entire fault of the inventor and anything afterwards is more or less his own work! (To be honest I see what you are talking about in notability, and strongly believe that the SCC court is evidence of notability... as well as the news articles on the device at the National Archives Canada) Anyways.... I just put 4 days of work into this article, found some reputable sources, and you want to delete it!!! I say fine... let's delete it. (I've noted my objections (now stroken out with a line within this AFD) and I still don't see any good rebutals) But, again, that fine with me... Whatever Wikipedia's WP:CONCENSUS says... "Let us crucify it!" Anyways, what makes me mad is not the fact that I can't seem to explain all the existing notable sources or the existing news articles but the fact that you won't even have the decency to let me userfy this article. I put it to you that this is blatant harasment and goes against WIKIPEDIA's guidelines and the spirit of working together. Again, this article is solely my contribution (with the acception of I believe 4 editors that added templates SPEEDY, PROD, and DEL). All that work I've done deleted... NO NO! I think not... specially after insulting me with a speedy... going against the WP:AGF by allowing the article more than 20 minutes of existance prior to PROD, or DEL. The scrutiny here is discusting! I therefore ask one last time PLEASE USERFY to user:CyclePat/Rhumart that way all the hard work I've done (neetly logged dates and time) will be kept. Please move the page to my user page so I can work at finding What you guys consider notable. This will allow, specially after I've only had the chance to visit to the National Archives of Canada (Ottawa) by next month sometime, to easy figure out my way of thinking and how I was writting this article. I'll be able to see how I was proceeding... and continue the development in a similar logical fashion. Again, as stated above please userfy so the history and developement of the article won't be lost. (Please it would be the decent thing to do, so I can maintain my contribution history)(That's really the most annoying part about these Deletes). p.s.: I've also made a comment on the ANI board regarding this issue and how, since, I'm the primary author of the article, I should be permited to blanc the page and request a SPEEDY DELETE Under clause G7. --CyclePat (talk) 03:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merger (sub-title for ease of editing)

Comment: Per WP:MERGE I've ben Bold and merged the content to Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc.. This discussion is pretty much useless now. Since now we are talking about the content of a diferent article. Please feel free to close this Afd. Also, per the subst:del template it is appropriate to remove the template from the page and merge. --CyclePat (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've even made a template to help the closing administrator... actually I've even placed it on the talk page.:

Votes for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 26 March 2008. The result of the discussion was inconclusive because the article was merged to Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc. under Wikipedia's guidelines of WP:BOLD and WP:MERGE.
--CyclePat (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: and I've reverted. Nothing in this article should be there, as the subject, proposed use, and proposed brand name, of the patented concept are all irrelevant to the court ruling. Leave AfD in place. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • comment:To clossing admin. Note discussion about merger at talk:Electro-magnetic therapeutic system#merger. Please note my appology regarding the Afd and merger I attempted to perform. Also please note how we are trying to build a concensus at Talk:Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc. to merge with either Electromagnetic Therapy or Free World Trust v. Électro Santé Inc.. Finally I would like to indicate that my comments on the talk page discuss if not rebut Arthurs claim that the patent and it's concept are irrelevant. In fact the information is even cited within the trial. Nevertheless, I'm most likely bias that is should be include... so please see the development of this discussion. --CyclePat (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Note: Please note WP:ANI regarding user-fication. --CyclePat (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, unlikely search term, not in itself a notable device. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)


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.