- 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 no consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nerve induction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unsourced stub on a fictional medical technique; untouched since 2005. Probably not notable for its use in fiction, and does not appear to exist in real life. Sandstein 08:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the induction of an action potential down a nerve is definitely a subject fit for inclusion in wikipedia. The Dune reference is just one particular application. It badly needs attention, though. - Richard Cavell (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there reliable sources covering the subject? Sandstein 08:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but all the ones that I know are based on paper. You don't generally find solid physiology textbooks on the Internet. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it would be great if you could cite these books in the article and replace it with a brief, three-sentence stub definition of the topic based on them. We could keep the article then, of course. Sandstein 11:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but all the ones that I know are based on paper. You don't generally find solid physiology textbooks on the Internet. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there reliable sources covering the subject? Sandstein 08:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Smells fishy. Someone might want to check with WP:WikiProject Neuroscience to see if such a concept even exists outside of Dune. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep and expand. Ample sources exist to demonstrate that it's a verifiable scientific concept. AfD is not cleanup. --Gene_poole (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no, they don't. I did that Google search before nominating this article, and it yields unrelated results such as an abstract including the phrase "... degenerating cat peripheral nerve: induction of Schwann ...". Could you please cite a specific reliable source covering this topic in adequate detail so that an article can be written about it? Sandstein 10:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, yes they do. At least if you bother to follow any of the links, that is. Like this scientific paper, or this scientific paper, or this scientific paper, or this news story from AAP. --Gene_poole (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources all mention the phrase "nerve induction" once (or, in the case of the 1968 paper, a few times) but it remains opaque what "nerve induction" actually is, or even whether they're all talking about the same thing. A few scattered references are not a basis for an article. Sandstein 12:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The salient detail here is that the term "nerve induction" verifiably exists as a notable scientific/medical concept. Whether each of the sources above are talking about the same thing or different things is entirely beside the point. Articles frequently can and do discuss terminologies that posess variable meanings dependent on the context of their usage - and if that's the case here, so should this article. --Gene_poole (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These sources all mention the phrase "nerve induction" once (or, in the case of the 1968 paper, a few times) but it remains opaque what "nerve induction" actually is, or even whether they're all talking about the same thing. A few scattered references are not a basis for an article. Sandstein 12:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Well, yes they do. At least if you bother to follow any of the links, that is. Like this scientific paper, or this scientific paper, or this scientific paper, or this news story from AAP. --Gene_poole (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, no, they don't. I did that Google search before nominating this article, and it yields unrelated results such as an abstract including the phrase "... degenerating cat peripheral nerve: induction of Schwann ...". Could you please cite a specific reliable source covering this topic in adequate detail so that an article can be written about it? Sandstein 10:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete According to Pubmed.com there were no article containing the string "nerve induction". Perhaps they meant neural induction instead. (I'm working from memory here, but I think that IS a valid concept). - Mgm|(talk) 11:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think there'd be any difference between the terms 'nerve induction' and 'neural induction'. It's the concept that's important, not the terminology. Induction of nerve action potentials is done by physiologists (in research) and neurologists (in practice) all the time. There's a science behind it; there's established doctrine behind it. Maybe I'll write an article about it one day myself, but not today. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The topic may be viable but, per WP:V, we shouldn't have an article about it as long as we can't find any reliable sources covering it. You're of course free to rewrite the article at any time if it is now deleted. Sandstein 11:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you thinking of what is actually known as electrotherapy? Uncle G (talk) 13:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Although, I guess electrotherapy is a specific application of neural induction. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neural induction appears to be something else entirely. I doubt that something with a nearly identical name would be used in the scientific community to mean something so radically different. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, neural induction appears to refer to fetal development of a nervous system (and probably needs an article). - Eldereft (cont.) 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think there'd be any difference between the terms 'nerve induction' and 'neural induction'. It's the concept that's important, not the terminology. Induction of nerve action potentials is done by physiologists (in research) and neurologists (in practice) all the time. There's a science behind it; there's established doctrine behind it. Maybe I'll write an article about it one day myself, but not today. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- question As a fictional weapon, I don't remember that the mechanism was ever really specified, but if this is an analogue of Asimov';s neural whip, it could be merged/redirected there. As something real, "neural induction" should have an article. DGG (talk) 03:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer Unless I am wrong (it has been a number of years since I read through the classics), neural whip refers to a non-lethal weapon, but this is a box. Although sci-fi methods for inducing pain without injury might be valid. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gom jabbar or somewhere else in the Duniverse unless real-world existence can be established (my searches indicate no, but I am not a biologist). - Eldereft (cont.) 22:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Keep per my comment below and describe artificially evoked potentials in the sense of Galvanism (the bit with the electrically twitchy frog legs). A merge Signal transduction#Artificial (article is about neurons converting stimuli into electrical signals, not general transducers) would also work. The Duniverse sentence is adequately treated at Gom jabbar. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - look at these articles on the Net: [1], [2], [3]. All describe different methods of nerve induction. 'Nerve induction' is not jargon; it's just describing the concept. I don't see a semantic difference between 'nerve induction' and 'neural induction', or 'induction of a nerve action potential'. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:57, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article currently says that it is about creating sensations by directly stimulating peripheral nerves, which seems like an expensive route for a haptic interface or possibly a brain computer interface. These articles are much more about research on how and why (electrically and chemically) neurons fire. The chemical aspects are treated by Neuromodulation and our family of neuron-related articles. Physical stimulation is covered by Electro Muscle Stimulation (though there may be more to say there). More complex systems exist for insects, where a roach's antennae are replaced by an electrostimulation box or a genegineered fruitfly is induced to jump with an IR pulse. Then there are cochlear implants and other neuroprosthetics, vagus nerve stimulation, deep brain stimulation, Transcranial magnetic stimulation, &c. for applications of Electrotherapy. Having an article describing the basic ways to change the firing behavior of neurons other than through the stimuli they have evolved to detect seems worthwhile. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your example of vagus nerve stimulation neatly demonstrates a specific application of nerve induction. The article as it stands is about the Dune universe, and I don't see that the Dune application ought to take precedence over current scientific theories. Neuromodulation is not the same thing as neurotransmission, which is not the same thing as nerve induction. Electro muscle stimulation is a specific type of nerve induction (although the muscle may be directly stimulated as well). Nerve induction can also affect sensory nerves, autonomic nerves, and other efferent nerves. Neuroprosthetics generally sense nerve stimulus, rather than cause it. Deep brain stimulation is related but I guess 'nerve' refers to peripheral nerves, whereas the brain contains tracts and nuclei by definition. Transcranial magnetic stimulation is again central nervous system rather than peripheral nervous system.
- I realise that to some extent my arguments in this AfD boil down to 'trust me, I'm a doctor', but this is an article for those with expertise. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for the point about the difference between stimulation of peripheral vs. central nerves (which I am willing to concede), I think I agreed with you on at least the important points. I am not convinced that chemical and electrical inducement should be treated in the same article, but that is not an AfD matter. - Eldereft (cont.) 16:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article currently says that it is about creating sensations by directly stimulating peripheral nerves, which seems like an expensive route for a haptic interface or possibly a brain computer interface. These articles are much more about research on how and why (electrically and chemically) neurons fire. The chemical aspects are treated by Neuromodulation and our family of neuron-related articles. Physical stimulation is covered by Electro Muscle Stimulation (though there may be more to say there). More complex systems exist for insects, where a roach's antennae are replaced by an electrostimulation box or a genegineered fruitfly is induced to jump with an IR pulse. Then there are cochlear implants and other neuroprosthetics, vagus nerve stimulation, deep brain stimulation, Transcranial magnetic stimulation, &c. for applications of Electrotherapy. Having an article describing the basic ways to change the firing behavior of neurons other than through the stimuli they have evolved to detect seems worthwhile. - Eldereft (cont.) 01:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP No justification for deletion nor policy is cited except for the belief of the nominator that the article isn't notable and the fictional reference is inappropriate. As has been demonstrated, it is. If the fictional elements are not appropriate then they should be removed. If the article is shitty it should be rewritten, but no policy is cited for the proposition that an article that is notable and is just not well supported should be deleted, and therefore it should be kept till such authority is brought to bear upon the discussion.--Δζ (talk) 10:14, 7 November 2008 (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.