Talk:Alcoholic lung disease

Untitled
Huh? Not sure this artlcle should exist. "Alcoholic lung disease" is not a medical diagnosis. Althouth it may be relevant to discuss the lung problems which alcoholics can develop, there is no one disease. How about: "Effects of alcohol ingestion on the lung"    or "Lung diseases associated with excessive alcohol consumption"   or "Mechanism whereby moderate alcohol consumption decreases repiratory mortality" or maybe all of these belong in other articles on alcohol or on lung disease. EtherDoc (talk) 04:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Best stated in the main reference used: "the association between alcohol abuse and acute lung injury...remains largely unrecognized, even by lung researchers." Maybe when it is recognized it deserves an article. EtherDoc (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion March 9 2013 EtherDoc (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm finding enough reliable sources that talk about "alcoholic lung disease" to at least contest the proposed deletion. If you want this article removed you need to take it to WP:AFD and create a discussion.Coffeepusher (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Deletion or merger?
Much of what is in this article could be in Long-term effects of alcohol or other articles. Or perhaps we could change the name to "Alcoholism and Lung Disease". It also seems possible that the original authors (first one now gone) are touting their own research. Just because one can google "Alcoholic Lung Disease" doesn't mean it is a separate entity. There is no limit to the number of possible entries if this strategy is followed. Should we have an article on "Alcoholic Skin Disease" since alcoholics often fall down and get lacerations? Perhaps a merger with other articles on the effects of alcohol is in order. EtherDoc (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree. This topic deserves a separate article because research into "alcoholic lung disease" is generating a fair amount of scholarly research all by itself.  Its not the google search that convinced me to remove the prod, it is the amount of scholarly sources which in themselves have generated citations into other articles on the topic of alcoholic lung disease.  The article as it stands needs to be improved, but there is enough reliable sources to justify a separate article.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * and no, I don't think we should have an article for "alcoholic skin disease" because there isn't any research available which demonstrates that skin diseases may be generated by alcohol.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

OK. I will endeavor to bring this article up to speed with current scholarly research. Lung physiology is something with which I am quite familiar. BTW  you may like this:  Skin diseases in alcoholics. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15369644 Please don't start another article. And this: Cutaneous adverse effects of alcohol http://www.dermnetnz.org/reactions/alcohol.html  I knew there would be something to find. :) EtherDoc (talk) 17:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * actually I was comparing the differences between this and this.Coffeepusher (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a physician who deals with lung function (and alcoholics) everyday. It is certainly true that alcoholism is associated with various lung diseases (many), but there is no generally accepted "Alcoholic Lung Disease". Alcoholism affects practically every system in the body, so I suppose we could have an article on each of over twenty different systems. Not sure that is needed. I don't want to see Wikipedia used to promote one lab's idea of a new syndrome unless it becomes generally recognized. Have a nice day. And thanks for keeping tabs on our friend David Hedlund. I am worried about him. He may soon die of exhaustion.EtherDoc (talk) 17:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


 * actually you are a wikipedian who is trying to learn how to edit wikipedia, and as such you should probably stop bragging about your professional credentials, because right now your credentials are that you are a user with less than 800 edits, who hasn't participated in community discussions, and it looks like you use your credentials to try and bully a conversation. I'm impressed with edits that skillfully use WP:RS to improve an article, I am not interested in professional insider information.  So the argument you are trying to make is a WP:NOTE argument.  Perhaps you should look over those guidelines and get back to us with insight that relies upon wikipedia policies, rather than personal insight.Coffeepusher (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Your comments are appreciated. I don't wish to bully my way through Wikipedia, although I do get frustrated at plainly uninformed posts. I agree completely with your sentiments about Wikipedia, and I will try to use policy better. It was nice to see though, that my deletion rate is only 2.9%. Not too bad. Yours is better at 2.6% Have a nice day. EtherDoc (talk) 18:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, my initial comments are still correct. This article seems the product of one main group who may not still be watching this article. And no it's not a single disease as the article claims, regardless of what google searches find. I'll leave it to anyone who rejects postmodernism to fix. EtherDoc (talk) 02:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)