Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitrification freezer
- 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. Sandstein 10:01, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Vitrification freezer (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)
The article is an unsupported neologism. "Vitrification freezer" is oxymoronic, and doesn't appear in any of the references. Microwaves do not appear in any of the references. Except for the propagation of this unsupported Wikipedia article to other websites, the term "vitrification freezer" is virtually unknown. In occasional rare usage, it has denoted conventional freezers used for vitrification not a hypothetical exotic technology. Cryobiologist (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
*Redirect and merge To Vitrification, specifically the section about cryonics. I'd be willing to do the work. Seems like a plausible search term since it's obviously used in the referenced papers. §FreeRangeFrog 22:11, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that "vitrification freezer" is not used in any of the papers referenced by the article. I text searched all of them. The microwave technology this article describes is also entirely unsupported by the references. It doesn't exist. I suppose "vitrification freezer" could just be redirected to the real technology article on vitrification, as you suggest. However I think the term would be rarely searched because it is so uncommon and self-contradictory (vitrification means solidification without freezing). It would be different if a company (ill-advisedly) actually offered a product called a "vitrification freezer," but to my knowledge none do. Cryobiologist (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the clarification, it seems you are right. I don't think this merits a redirect. Changing !vote to delete. §FreeRangeFrog 02:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that "vitrification freezer" is not used in any of the papers referenced by the article. I text searched all of them. The microwave technology this article describes is also entirely unsupported by the references. It doesn't exist. I suppose "vitrification freezer" could just be redirected to the real technology article on vitrification, as you suggest. However I think the term would be rarely searched because it is so uncommon and self-contradictory (vitrification means solidification without freezing). It would be different if a company (ill-advisedly) actually offered a product called a "vitrification freezer," but to my knowledge none do. Cryobiologist (talk) 00:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:13, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Theopolisme 01:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete I agree with Cryobiologist that "vitrification freezer" is an oxymoron and accept his/her arguments for deleting this nonsense from Wikipedia. --Ben Best 18:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Questions: The Forbes article cited in the article has this paragraph:
- "It works like a microwave oven but in reverse. Inside the freezer the object being frozen is zapped with a strong magnetic field and, Owada says, other kinds of energy. The field keeps the cream or beef's water molecules swirling in liquid form even as their temperature plummets. When the field is switched off, the object is instantly frozen, without time for the formation of ice crystals. These crystals normally rip apart organic cells, which degrades the texture and taste of food."
- The two patent documents[1][2] are similar, referring to magnetic and electric fields but not microwaves. So, I have these questions:
- 1. If there is an electromagnetic field involved, is it in the microwave frequency band?
- No. In response to a letter written to the journal Cryobiology questioning the extremely weak static magnetic field said to be used in the CAS freezer, a reply to the journal Cryobiology coauthored by the CAS inventor said "60 Hz alternating magnetic fields with an induced electric field generated from CAS freezer were used" combined with an unspecified "CAS vibration" consisting of mechanical and thermal (sic) vibration. The strength of the oscillating magnetic field was also said to be larger than the static field strength stated in their published papers. No peer-reviewed source has stated microwaves are used. On the other hand, the variance between what has been published about CAS freezers and what was said in that letter to Cryobiology is so great that I suppose anything is possible. But we can only go by what has been disclosed. Cryobiologist (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- 2. What is the correct name by which Owada's freezer systems are referred?
- 3. Why is the term said to be oxymoronic -- isn't traditional vitrification cooling to a solid below the freezing point of water without producing ice crystals?
- Vitrification means solidifying without ice crystals. Freezing means forming ice crystals. Hence "vitrification freezer" is an oxymoron (a self-contradiction). Furthermore, the CAS freezer cannot work by vitrification, and I'm not aware of any claim in the scientific literature that it does. Any strongly supercooled liquid prevented from freezing by oscillating electric fields would freeze (crystallize) the instant the fields were turned off at any temperature greater than -130 degC (approximate glass transition temperature of water). CAS freezers don't get that cold. Cryobiologist (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note there is much more detailed discussion of this at [3] including mention of Ben Best who I assume is the same as above. 2010 SO16 (talk) 15:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: this appears to be peer-reviewed validation of the ABI, Inc./Owada "Cells Alive System" (CAS) which I found from [4]. There is a followup at PMID 21397593, a subsequent comment at PMID 22330639, and commercial info at [5]. So I suppose I will propose a move to that name but I want to do a little more research first. 2010 SO16 (talk) 15:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Proposal: I intend to write Cells Alive System from scratch based on those new peer reviewed references, and redirect this article there, unless anyone objects. 2010 SO16 (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have boldly done so. I was able to use a handful of references and some text from the original article and so I am very interested in feedback (and further edits, of course) from participants here. 2010 SO16 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am happy that you made a new article with a different focus but this deletion discussion should run its course without becoming a redirect. I reverted your change of this article into a redirect to that new article. It may be the case that this article should become a redirect, but that needs to happen with community discussion. I vote Delete per nominator and think that Wikipedia would be better with this article gone, not turned into a redirect. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by a different focus. The subject matter is exactly the same. But I'm happy to accommodate this by changing existing links so it won't matter. 2010 SO16 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The subject matter isn't the same. The CAS freezer is a food freezer that according to journal articles (and a subsequent letter of correction) uses low frequency oscillating magnetic fields and mechanical vibrations to enhance survival of small frozen tissue/cell pieces by mechanisms that are still unclear. The "Vitrification freezer" article describes a fantasy technology that uses microwaves to vitrify kilograms of material without cryoprotectants. There is no such technology, not in CAS freezers, not anywhere. Cryobiologist (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe there are no longer any links to Vitrification freezer but I can't be sure because Special:WhatLinksHere/Vitrification freezer still has all the articles transcluding {{Emerging technologies}}. 2010 SO16 (talk) 23:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you mean by a different focus. The subject matter is exactly the same. But I'm happy to accommodate this by changing existing links so it won't matter. 2010 SO16 (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I am happy that you made a new article with a different focus but this deletion discussion should run its course without becoming a redirect. I reverted your change of this article into a redirect to that new article. It may be the case that this article should become a redirect, but that needs to happen with community discussion. I vote Delete per nominator and think that Wikipedia would be better with this article gone, not turned into a redirect. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have boldly done so. I was able to use a handful of references and some text from the original article and so I am very interested in feedback (and further edits, of course) from participants here. 2010 SO16 (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Alternative Proposal: Proceed with deletion of this "Vitrification freezer" article, and continue development of the Cells Alive System (CAS) article. A redirect is not appropriate because CAS freezers don't involve vitrification. The self-contradictory neologism "Vitrification freezer" didn't even exist until someone created this article, so nobody is going to look up "vitrification freezer" once this article is deleted. Cryobiologist (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2012 (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.