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 redirect to superior frontal gyrus and possibly merge there, which all are invited to do. Sandstein 07:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patient AK[edit]

This is non-notable. After an exhausting 3 hour research session of this so called Patient AK I found nothing. In addition its only reference is apparently to a book or paper which introduced this subject in the first place. Amanduhh 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Patient AK patently satisfies the criterion for notability. The reference is to Nature, so the entry is hardly original research. There are absolutely no grounds for deletion: read the Nature paper, and decide for yourself. Robinh 22:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep needs expand. as it stands is obviously verifiable, <sarc>ok nature published pons & fleischman but it's a fairly well respected journal</sarc>. the problem is as it stands it doesn't go anywhwere, the result has some obvious implications, and then there are issues w/ the patient being epileptic, can this be expanded from the article? (i cant' access it, have no competence in the area) as it stands it's almost, 'so what?' ⇒ bsnowball 14:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is nothing notable about the patient, unlike particular patients in psychoanalysis etc. The phenomenon is notable, and there should be a place for it. DGG 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge. There's been a lot of code-named research subjects in history, but I don't want to see an article on every single one. If the research a subject was involved in is notable (and this case is notable, imho), it should be merged into an article which deals with that topic. Quack 688 09:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Quack 688 and GCC make good points: the phenomenon itself is notable, the patient herself only notable because of the phenomenon she exhibited. I don't see why patient AK shouldn't be as notable as Rat man, say. Wherever this material is put, patient AK should redirect to it. Robinh 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to superior frontal gyrus. Verified but not notable. Chondrite 07:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Robinh is wrong when he says that Patient AK satisfies the criterion for notability. She does not, as her actions were entirely involuntary and beyond her control. That she laughed was notable in the context of the research, but Patient AK could have been replaced by a suitable Patient XYZ or Patient ABC without changing the result of the research. No-one will be looking her up, so this article is Delete as non-notable, with no redirect or merge. WMMartin 19:23, 7 December 2006 (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.