Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Case studies of Brown-Sequard syndrome


 * 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   no consensus. It may need to be renamed, or possibly transwikied - neither of which require continuation of this AfD. There is no consensus to delete. StarM 06:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Case studies of Brown-Sequard syndrome

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This was split off from Brown-Sequard syndrome, as case examples are well beyond the intended scope of Wikipedia's health content. I think it would be very useful for a medical textbook or a student tutorial, but not here. JFW | T@lk  19:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We do however have other similar pages here on Wikipedia: see Medical research related to low-carbohydrate diets. One of the problems with rare conditions is that all we really have for them are case studies.  This is well referenced and well illustrated.  It does however sit at the edge of what Wikipedia should contain.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Claims that this article is original research are incorrect. All these cases have been previously reported and published in peer reviewed journals of international circulation. Furthermore, the description of case studies is legitimate in rare syndromes such as Brown-Sequard Syndrome. Here is a question for you to ponder: If you people who never write anything, yet are highly critical of well written articles insist on deleting everything, who is going to write on Wiki? I can tell you that if this is deleted, there is no point in writing anything on Wiki. A E Francis (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominator of this AfD has created hundreds of articles ( mostly medical related) and has worked to get several to featured and good article level - despite being an administrator around two thirds of their 50,000+ edits have been in mainspace. It seems perfectly reasonable for an active member of the medicine and pharmacology Wikiprojects - who has made 1000's of constructive mainspace edits about the general subject matter - to ask for a community opinion if they feel the content of a particular article may not be within Wikipedia's remit. Guest9999 (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This was originally posted to AfD based on original research. This was however removed as that is not the case.  The concern here is that it is at the edge of scope ( probably even a little beyond the edge of scope ) for Wikipedia.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The nominating statement appears unchanged from when this discussion was originally created . Guest9999 (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is still original research in the sense that it tries to synthesise content in a fashion normally to be expected from review articles or textbook chapters. I'm unclear why we should make an exception here. Thanks to Guest9999 for caring to support my nomination with a testimonial to my reputation. JFW | T@lk  20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a medical textbook. But even in such a textbook, case reports like this are usually summarized. This would be inappropriate anywhere but in a specialized review. DGG (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - This is obviously valuable, well-researched and well-sourced information on a non-trivial and non-controversial topic. If it's not breaking any guidelines other than WP:NOT it should be kept. I know, WP:USEFUL and so on, but in this case, I don't care. §FreeRangeFrog 23:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It does break the guidelines on medical articles. Would you find this in a normal encyclopedia? JFW | T@lk  20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Wikibooks if there are no copyright concerns. This is indeed valuable, well-researched content and should not be lost, but it also does not belong in Wikipedia, at least not in its current state. Wikipedia is a general-purpose encyclopedia, and, as such, is not the place for extensive discussion of case reports. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep/Transwiki I think we should keep this as it is really not that far out of scope. I would be fine with Transwiki if we can keep the same link to the main article on Brown-Sequard syndrome -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Would you find this in a normal encyclopedia? No, not really. Transwiki would be the best solution. JFW | T@lk  20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a normal encyclopedia. This is a the largest greatest encyclopedia with the biggest scope every made.  And it is getting bigger every day. :-)  I just have a couple concerns.  One is that case studies are all we have for rare conditions.  And this is a rare condition.  Doesn't say it is the right format but...  Someone has put a lot of work into them and with a bit of guidance would make a very good editor.  Something which we do not have many of and definitely should not turn away.  And finely even if we do move this to wikibooks much of the content needs to be reworked back into the main article.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I do not think presenting information in the form of case studies is appropriate - Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook and I think that is the context in which this information belongs. If some of the sourced information could be used (without employing original research) in a section describing the various causes of the condition in the main Brown-Sequard syndrome article I might be in favour of a selective merge. Guest9999 (talk) 01:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki or Keep - This information is well-sourced, pertinent to a rare condition, and well above the average quality of WP. --Scray (talk) 03:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I never argued that there was a quality problem. It is simply not the kind of content one would find in an encyclopedia. JFW | T@lk  20:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said. --Scray (talk) 01:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Far too detailed for Wikipedia. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Excellent article, I had no problem reading it. --Mr Accountable (talk) 05:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep/Move/Transwiki; This is really good content. Better than most medical content on Wikipedia. As far as I can see the only thing people are objecting to is the name. Perhaps it could be renamed more in accordance with precedent. I also suport that transwiki option. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:28, 14 February 2009 (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.