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. There seems to be wide agreement that once the original research and synthesis is removed from this article, there'll be nothing left. No prejudice against the creation of another article at the same title in the future, so long as it doesn't contain the same sorts of problems as this one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Human photosynthesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article freely mixes WP:OR and WP:SYN with speculative nonsense. Guy (Help!) 11:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as human WP:SYN; the only sources that deal with the subject directly are WP:PRIMARY papers from the Human Photosynthesis Study Center (whose website will sell you a box of "QIAPI 1" photosynthesis pills for $55), the other two refer to related melanin processes without going so far as calling it "photosynthesis". The rest seems WP:OR; concluding that a long-distance swimmer was possibly photosynthesing because they had a suntan is ridiculous. There may be an article to be written about fringe theories of human photosynthesis, but not with any of this content. --McGeddon (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge It is well established that human photosynthesise Vitamin D - see here for details. The BBC has an interesting account of other possibilities, based upon the traits of other animals. Between the two ideas, there seems to be something to say. Andrew D. (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is what the BBC article has to say about the topic of this article “If you imagine a person who had to get all of their energy from the sun, they’d have to be very still. Then, they’d need a high surface area, with leafy protrusions. At that point, the person’s a tree.”[1] I do not see how that supports the notability of this article. Jbh^Talk 15:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/merge Name change to Human Phototrophism? This name is more accurate for the described phenomenon. The mechanism described is sound, and it is in the hypothetical stages. Solis-Herrera's article is not the only source demonstrating melanin-catalyzed energy production from light. The article about the melanized pectin of birds (humans have melanin in their eye too) and vertebrate phototrophism, and also the article about melanized fungus that are able to grow larger when presented with electromagnetic radiation (light) demonstrate that melanized organisms are able to create energy from light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhototrophicHuman (talk • contribs) 16:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: PhototrophicHuman (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

If the article is really about human phototrophism, rather than photosynthesis, then what does it have to do with people who claim to go without food? (Or even worse, without water!?) It's not clear what the scope of the article is meant to be, and it runs into problems with WP:SYNTH by making connections between these different topics. Even if the scope can be clarified, the topics are all within the range of WP:FRINGE and will need reliable sources which may be hard to find or nonexistent. --Amble (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with the arguments above that this is WP:OR and WP:SYN. The journal articles are all either not credible or not relevant, so RS is an issue as well. OJPsych and Neuroscience and Medicine are published by Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP), which is on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers. PLOS One is peer reviewed, but doesn't really have standards for inclusion. The Journal of Neurological Sciences (Turkish) is peer reviewed, though small and open-access. Current Biology is a real journal, although there are some very similarly named fake ones. So, yes, this is OR, SYN and speculative nonsense. CoI disclaimer: I have no competing interests and have not edited the article. Voting editors with a potential conflict of interest should disclose that here. Roches (talk) 19:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Topic is not supported by WP:MEDRS. Fails WP:GNG if there is any research into this it is WP:FRINGE. While there may be research that can be shoehorned into the topic area I see nothing to be taken seriously in an article claiming any main stream scientific support for investigation into or study of, as the article says, "the human body [being] able to photosynthesise in the same way as a plant." Jbh^Talk 03:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness that first line is my own hasty summary when giving the article some basic cleanup: the article originally opened "The Mechanism of Human Photosynthesis, or Phototrophism, has been hypothesized by neuroscientist Ty Shedleski." and was later edited to go straight into "Human photosynthesis, or more accurately human phototrophism, is made possible by melanin absorbing energy...". --McGeddon (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Very nearly a hoax article. jps (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anything that's reliably sourced can be discussed in the main article, photosynthesis. There isn't really much to say about this yet. A couple speculative articles that ask, "Wouldn't it be cool?" don't really make an encyclopedia article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails notability and makes extreme claims without reliable sourcing. Edison (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's a notable topic of high interest to the general public with enough available sources. Wikipedia articles shouldn't speculate themselves but convey the speculations of authorities in the particular field in a way that makes it clear to the reader that said are speculations and not established facts (the article should be checked for this if it's not already in line with that).
  

A short and on-point summary of the current stance of things and the various speculations on human photosynthesis can be and in this case is appropiate for a wiki-article and of high notability. More references are needed though (which is not a case of deleting the article but of improving it). --Fixuture (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be grounds for a "delete without prejudice" or a WP:TNT, because the present article has nothing good once the speculation is removed - David Gerard (talk) 09:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with the other editors voting to delete above. --Krelnik (talk) 19:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. When trimmed of content that is WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, what is left is non-notable content sourced to low quality publications (as noted by Roches above). ChemNerd (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice per all above. Fixuture notes the possibility of a good article, but there is nothing worth saving in this one once the OR and low-quality sources are removed - David Gerard (talk) 09:28, 9 October 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.