Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus


 * 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   delete. -- Cirt (talk) 04:44, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Burnt-out diabetes mellitus

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Concept not widely used, recently introduced but without clear description of notability. It is well known that people with diabetes whose renal function deteriorates need reduced insulin doses, and sometimes can completely discontinue treatment. The 2010 article did not introduce that concept. Delete. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 12:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. The creators do not seem to be active in the article's improvement. Subject's notability is questionable, so if this cannot be established, then definitely send it down the tubes. –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  09:06, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Deletion of this topic is clearly against freedom of science and paradigm shifting efforts and consistent with hostile bias.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC)  — Burntout123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Deletion of this topic is clearly against freedom of science and against potential paradigm shifting efforts and consistent with hostile bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)  — Burntout123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * You may want to soothe your hostile feelings and come up with a more practical reason to keep this article. The notability of the subject is what matters to Wikipedia.  And the notability of this subject is questionable.  If you disagree, then please supply an objective argument for this subject's notability. –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  04:49, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Currently there are about 14,700 websites on this topic in GOOGLE. Its paradigm-shifting nature naturally antagonizes people who cannot agree that diabetes mellitus may be burnt out and may hence eventually have a cure. The hostile bias against such scientifically sound steps is natural. However, it may not lead to its deltion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC) — Burntout123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Your argument is compelling, and I wonder if the term "burnt-out diabetes" might have an even wider scope. It is intriguing to me that, while nobody seems to know why, this type of surgery also reverses diabetes type II in 90% of cases.
 * As the warning box indicates, anyone can feel free to continue to edit this article. Since the article is a stub with only one inline citation and three other references, what it needs to "survive" seems to be to expand it with more applicable information, and to find and add more reference citations, more scholarly, third-party references.  As it is now, it cannot remain and should be deleted; however, if what you say is true and is more than just original research, then it should not be difficult to improve this article so that it would no longer be a deletion candidate.  Are you willing to take on this task? –  Paine Ellsworth  (  C LIMAX  )  10:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

[User:Ron Ritzman|Ron Ritzman]] (talk) 00:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted * Will try to add a few excerpts in 2-3 weeks after contacting some experts and opinion leaders


 * The fact that these types of surgery virtually "cure" diabetes clearly show that diabetes can be cured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 24 May 2011 (UTC) — Burntout123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete WP:NEO that hasn't been picked up. the hindu article uses the term in passing. the journal article is about the topic, but does not satisfy WP:GNG. -Atmoz (talk) 16:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Noting that References expanded below means adding one new reference by two of the same authors (Csaba P. Kovesdy and Kamyar Kalantar-Zadeh). Still doesn't satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NEO. -Atmoz (talk) 20:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * References expanded. Article expanded. Over 2,000 websites refer to "burnt-out diabetes". This is a significant theme and may not be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burntout123 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 07:33, 1 June 2011 (UTC)




 * Delete as recent neologism with no evidence of it having become an accepted term. Given the low impact of the two papers (4 and 3 citations), notability of the subject is not established.Novangelis (talk) 20:53, 1 June 2011 (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.