Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:34, 21 November 2007 editRjd0060 (talk | contribs)33,499 edits change back to keep← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:09, 13 October 2023 edit undoJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors372,463 edits Fix Linter errors. 
(9 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''Keep''' due to improvements to the article during AFD. ] (]) 11:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|T}}


:{{la|Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
Article is an original synthesis of ideas, which is clearly forbidden by ] and ]. Quoting the OR policy: ''Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses.'' ] 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC) Article is an original synthesis of ideas, which is clearly forbidden by ] and ]. Quoting the OR policy: ''Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses.'' ] 00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


*'''<s>Weak Keep''': For now. References have been added to support the statements listed, so I don't see the OR. - ] (]) 01:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)</s> *<s>'''Weak Keep''': For now. References have been added to support the statements listed, so I don't see the OR. - ] (]) 01:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)</s>
::<s>'''Delete''': I've been convinced, per the below comments. - ] (]) 04:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)</s> ::<s>'''Delete''': I've been convinced, per the below comments. - ] (]) 04:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)</s>
::'''Keep''': Per ]. Good work ]. - ] (]) 19:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC) ::'''Keep''': Per ]. Good work ]. - ] (]) 19:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' — Overall concept of the article is OR and ]. Trying to tie together these diseases is OR. The entire thesis of the article is OR because there is no reference for it. Author is making a point, not reporting a point made by others. ] 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC) *'''Delete''' — Overall concept of the article is OR and ]. Trying to tie together these diseases is OR. The entire thesis of the article is OR because there is no reference for it. Author is making a point, not reporting a point made by others. ] 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete.''' This seems to me an entirely irrelevant article. Virtually every disease known to man had an unknown etiology before some period in its history, which readers can find out about in each disease's own article. For the handful of Misplaced Pages articles on diseases of unknown cause, we have ]. Readers can also find lists of inflammatory diseases in ]. ] (]) 01:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC) *<s>'''Delete.''' This seems to me an entirely irrelevant article. Virtually every disease known to man had an unknown etiology before some period in its history, which readers can find out about in each disease's own article. For the handful of Misplaced Pages articles on diseases of unknown cause, we have ]. Readers can also find lists of inflammatory diseases in ].</s> ] (]) 01:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' - per Someguy1221. (he pretty much covered everything.) &nbsp; ] ('']'') 02:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC) :*'''Keep.''' The article rewrite displays this topic to be independently notable and verifiable. ] (]) 04:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' - per Someguy1221. (he pretty much covered everything.) &nbsp; ] ('']'') 02:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' looks to me like a pretty straight-forward case of ]. Article author is collecting primary sources together to present a novel synthesis. The result does not appear to be an encyclopedic documentation of a topic with "extensive coverage" by reliable, secondary, sources as required by ]. If secondary sources existed, they would be review articles covering all the material covered in this article. If this article were to summarize a number of review articles from the medical journals, then I'd be satisfied, but that's not what's happening here. ] (]) 06:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC) * '''Delete''' looks to me like a pretty straight-forward case of ]. Article author is collecting primary sources together to present a novel synthesis. The result does not appear to be an encyclopedic documentation of a topic with "extensive coverage" by reliable, secondary, sources as required by ]. If secondary sources existed, they would be review articles covering all the material covered in this article. If this article were to summarize a number of review articles from the medical journals, then I'd be satisfied, but that's not what's happening here. ] (]) 06:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
* '''Delete''' as ], ], essay. ] (]) 04:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC) * '''Delete''' as ], ], essay. ] (]) 04:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Line 28: Line 35:


*'''Keep as modified'''. As the author is apparently reluctant to make the necessary drastic revisions in his article, I have '''boldly removed''' the long introduction explaining with over-long quotes why the subject is important, and also eliminated the section on diseases which have presently ''known'' etiologies. Such a summary section might well a separate article with an appropriate title, but I leave the author to do it. But he has by now added what seem to be adequate sources to verify the current status of each of the diseases mentioned, though one or two of the present ones seem to be individual case studies--they still need to be presented as proper references, not just links to PubMed. ''']''' (]) 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC) *'''Keep as modified'''. As the author is apparently reluctant to make the necessary drastic revisions in his article, I have '''boldly removed''' the long introduction explaining with over-long quotes why the subject is important, and also eliminated the section on diseases which have presently ''known'' etiologies. Such a summary section might well a separate article with an appropriate title, but I leave the author to do it. But he has by now added what seem to be adequate sources to verify the current status of each of the diseases mentioned, though one or two of the present ones seem to be individual case studies--they still need to be presented as proper references, not just links to PubMed. ''']''' (]) 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

*'''Keep as modified''' I think DGG has done a good job in modifying the article, and it is now both useful and more-or-less in compliance with OR. ]·] 19:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

*'''Keep with further modifications'''. The author asked my feedback. I was shocked to find a request for deletion. Clearly, it is misplaced here. Where are the calls to delete the ] article? This list is useful; please do not delete. I do, however, believe that the article should be simplified into a simple list of diseases. I notice that a ] already exist. The author may chose to cross-link both lists or merge his list with the latter. I left a comment to that effect in the article talk page. ] (]) 19:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

*'''Keep''' and improve. The article is sourced and informative.] (]) 04:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 19:09, 13 October 2023

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 Keep due to improvements to the article during AFD. Davewild (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology

Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article is an original synthesis of ideas, which is clearly forbidden by WP:OR and WP:SYN. Quoting the OR policy: Interpretations and syntheses must be attributed to reliable sources that make these interpretations and syntheses.   Skopp   00:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete: I've been convinced, per the below comments. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Per WP:HEY. Good work DGG. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete — Overall concept of the article is OR and WP:SYN. Trying to tie together these diseases is OR. The entire thesis of the article is OR because there is no reference for it. Author is making a point, not reporting a point made by others.   Skopp   01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This seems to me an entirely irrelevant article. Virtually every disease known to man had an unknown etiology before some period in its history, which readers can find out about in each disease's own article. For the handful of Misplaced Pages articles on diseases of unknown cause, we have Category:Ailments of unknown etiology. Readers can also find lists of inflammatory diseases in inflammation. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - per Someguy1221. (he pretty much covered everything.)   jj137 (Talk) 02:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete looks to me like a pretty straight-forward case of WP:SYN. Article author is collecting primary sources together to present a novel synthesis. The result does not appear to be an encyclopedic documentation of a topic with "extensive coverage" by reliable, secondary, sources as required by WP:N. If secondary sources existed, they would be review articles covering all the material covered in this article. If this article were to summarize a number of review articles from the medical journals, then I'd be satisfied, but that's not what's happening here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, essay. JJL (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article creates a generalisation that doesn't exist. Most diseases mentioned are reasonably well understood, even if their etiologic agent is not known, and the author mixes autoimmune and infectious conditions, as well as suggesting diseases that feature inflammation are therefore "inflammatory diseases". WP:NOR/WP:SYNTH concerns as described. JFW | T@lk 06:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Whilst I agree there is a strong risk (indeed currently so) that this article breaches Original Research for the collation of different disease (not that any one disorder does not have plenty of references that could be cited), I would point out that the article is currently "Under construction" and already has had another admin (User:DGG) comment on problems and initial workup tasks required - see User talk:Reasonablelogicalman#Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology.
    • As such, I’d be inclined to allow a little more leeway before AfD, and Skopp's (Skoppensboer (talk · contribs)) belittling of admin action/observation is sailing close to the wind given the previous uncivil edit warring against Reasonablelogicalman (talk · contribs) over whether there is a possible unrecognised infectious cause to chronic prostatitis.
    • I agree though that WP:NOR risk and the topic might have been better worked up as a user subpage with some input from other editors to address the OR issues (too late now).
    • Whilst a start has been made at citing references, many more are needed for the historical descriptions of each of the various diseases listed. Also if there is a citation which can be given to an article or textbook that considers inflammatory reponses to infections, then the charge of OR for the inclusion selection process for the various diseases would be (partly) addressed.
    • Whilst I dislike intensely articles that collate unrelated disorders, there is no doubt that a large number of concurrently problematic disorders (MS, CFS, some cancers (cervical and possibly some of haematological cancers), inflammatory arthropathies, and dare I suggest chronic prostatitis) have had notable suggestions of having underlying infectious triggers. Of course whilst some initial research suggestions later confirmed and widely accepted, for many more acceptance has not been the case and WP:NPOV needs ensure such disproved/non-accepted suggestions not given WP:UNDUE weight.
    • A description giving a historical outline of such notable claims does not seem unreasonable - the current (very brief) infection article addresses the direct effects of infections but not adverse effects of immune responses. Whether such coverage should be placed under infection or perhaps a better titled article (e.g. Inflammatory response to infections - but better phrased than my poor attempt) I'm unsure. However at very least "Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology" seems the wrong title for what is mostly an infections-as-putative-causes-of-inflammatory-disorders discussion. David Ruben 05:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have tried to persuade the author to at least divide the article: between one of diseases of presently unknown causation, and those that have been solved long ago, he has not done so. I cannot see any harm in deleting the article and starting over on a more rational plan.
  • I also remain unclear despite several questions about why there is a concentration upon inflammatory diseases, a very broad and inhomogeneous class--not all of which are infective.
  • However, I do not see the rush to delete the article, especially in view of the conflict between its author and the nom. over an article elsewhere. I have not been as involved with trying to straighten out the problems there as David R, but I concur in general with what he says above. DGG (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment the author does seem to be constructively working on it. I would continue to strongly advise division of the article. DGG (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • request more time I am requesting more time to work on the article. I have added much more content and have focused on adding more references that are from review articles in the medical literature. I have also rewritten the concept. Each day I add at least a little bit to the article. Thank for all the constructive input. ReasonableLogicalMan(Talk 19:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as modified. As the author is apparently reluctant to make the necessary drastic revisions in his article, I have boldly removed the long introduction explaining with over-long quotes why the subject is important, and also eliminated the section on diseases which have presently known etiologies. Such a summary section might well a separate article with an appropriate title, but I leave the author to do it. But he has by now added what seem to be adequate sources to verify the current status of each of the diseases mentioned, though one or two of the present ones seem to be individual case studies--they still need to be presented as proper references, not just links to PubMed. DGG (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
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.