| Revision as of 13:42, 17 April 2016 edit124.188.116.37 (talk) recommended for deletion← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:02, 17 April 2016 edit undoSmokefoot (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers74,619 edits #REDIRECT Reactive oxygen species, seems more expedientNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Proposed deletion/dated | |||
| |concern = The article at Reactive oxygen species makes no attempt to explain redox signaling in the context of ROS and in fact makes no mention of redox signaling at all. As redox signaling is: | |||
| * subject to current research (]) | |||
| * featured heavily in the promotion of products such as ASEA (http://www.redoxsignalingwater.com/) | |||
| * also subject to controversy regarding the effectiveness of products such as ASEA (for example http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/accused-of-lying-about-asea-not-guilty/), | |||
| it seems that it should either have its own page, or the ROS page should be expanded to deal with redox signaling as well. | |||
| This deletion is recommended because, as this page only redirects to the ROS page, significant confusion could be caused about the role of redox signaling in the body: a reader could easily come to believe that redox signaling and ROS damage are one and the same, or at least closely interlinked; however they are in fact quite separate concepts, and indeed both redox signaling and ROS are vital to various biological processes. Because of this high potential for confusion, especially in the context of the controversy over "redox signaling water", this redirect is inappropriate and should be deleted; in its place an article could be written about redox signaling. | |||
| |timestamp = 20160417134205 | |||
| }} | |||
| #REDIRECT ] | #REDIRECT ] | ||
Revision as of 15:02, 17 April 2016
Redirect to: