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. Wizardman 22:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DNA Phantom effect[edit]

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

This seems to be describing a fringe theory, though it's one that's difficult to evaluate as it's so obscure. The only references are to a twenty year old mention in a Russian, the title of which suggests even the writers then had doubts about it, and a similarly ancient paper that seems unrelated. The other link is to a commercial site which is up to date but seems just to be pushing this fringe theory. The link is to a Google translate of a Russian page, but there's an English page here. Science, especially life science, is a very active field so I would expect there to be more recent research and so references. As it is it looks like an obscure fringe theory with few supporters. JohnBlackburne (talk) 14:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wikipedia does not necessarily exclude fringe theories (see Wikipedia:Fringe theories). The question here is whether or not this particular theory is verifiable and has gained enough coverage (negative or favorable) in reliable sources to become notable. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:07, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a fringe theory (WP:FRINGE). As such Wikipedia cannot allow undue weight to a fringe opinion. Coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. Although there are hits on Google Scholar, this theory seems to be related to other fringe theories such as "Wave genetics". These type of theories tend to mix up or mesh peer reviewed science with belief systems. This is what I see with the "Phantom DNA effect". Specifically I am uncomfortable with the nebulous concept "subtle energy phenomena" and "subtle energy fields that couple with the EM field". This appears to be an unidentified subtle energy field. In the 2003 version, this seems central to this theory, as mentioned in the PDF document here. At least three of the cited sources appear to be not in the science arena: references # 3, 4, and 8 - and I have to wonder about reference #1. Also a google search and a google image search shows me that this theory appears to lack notability. Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable fringe theory. The refs given don't support the claims of the article. Even fringe theories need to be verifiable to be included. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:17, 19 December 2009 (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.