Talk:Vapour-phase-mediated antimicrobial activity

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted from this draft on 6 April 2018 by reviewer Legacypac (talk · contribs).

Microbiology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microbiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microbiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrobiologyWikipedia:WikiProject MicrobiologyTemplate:WikiProject MicrobiologyMicrobiology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Copyvio checked ok with earwig tool. Legacypac (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour-phase-mediated_antimicrobial_activity

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I read you "Copyvio checked ok with earwig tool" this page, but should this page not be removed or moved to another page? The reasons I have are: 1) it seems to be a a (spam) article/wikipedia page written by one of the authors of the papers mentioned 2) it uses pretty much the same 2 articles from the same first author (Feyaerts) 3) the last reference "Plant-derived volatiles may serve as future antifungals". Phys.org. March 9, 2018. Retrieved 2018-03-10." is nothing more but the same reference from Feyaerts et al (check the link, you can see it is written by the same authors again) 4) there are 2 references from other authors Novy P, Kloucek P, Rondevaldova J, Havlik J, Kourimska L, Kokoska L (April 2014). "Thymoquinone vapor significantly affects the results of Staphylococcus aureus sensitivity tests using the standard broth microdilution method". Fitoterapia. 94: 102–7. doi:10.1016/j.fitote.2014.01.024. PMID 24508861 and Bueno J (2015). "Models of evaluation of antimicrobial activity of essential oils in vapour phase: a promising use in healthcare decontamination". Natural Volatiles & Essential Oils. 2 (2). ISSN 2148-9637. However the first one Noby et al never mentioned the VMAA while it is used as a reference. And the second reference Bueno et al is a valid one, but it just talks about another approach (agar disk diffusion test) that is already mentioned on another wikipedia page. 5) this while page should be either moved or deleted because at the moment it is nothing but a term that is explained. The "term" itself (or process) in this page is supported by only 1 author (Feyaerts) that published 2 papers on it and the last reference on phys.org is again from the same author.

It seems that Feyaerts et al came up with this name (VMAA) and now want to put it out there, but should it be done like this? With a new article based on their papers? There are no secondary sources whatsoever. (Unsigned on my talk)

This would be an editorial decision. I moved this to mainspace from draft as a valid topic. Legacypac (talk) 14:17, 31 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

I have removed the reference that was not in his place. VMAA is a term coined by Feyaerts et al. and has not been used outside his papers. The article contains no other references than the primary sources from Feyaerts et al.2A02:A03F:4E9A:7700:588E:34DE:73ED:9DC1 (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic