Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habba 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   delete. Per sourcing concerns. Upon further review, it appears there is one reliable source. Consensus is merge to Diarrhea  Shi  meru  21:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Habba syndrome

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article on the same topic, Habba Syndrome was deleted as per a previous discussion. This article also still fails to meet WP:N. Numerous other issues, including being an orphan. If this article is not deleted then a redirect to this article should be made from Habba Syndrome which at least, though deleted has another page linking to it. Gz33 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Could an admin please check if this is a G4-candidate? --Pgallert (talk) 10:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Merge Mentioned by high quality third party sources such as Uptodate. Can you link to the previous deletion discussion please?  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It was already linked but it's at Articles for deletion/Habba Syndrome (caps). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Week keep, Merge, it was notable enough to be requested. Waiting to see what other people say.Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:07, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge It's worth noting that the so-called publishing in the American Journal of Gastroenterology was merely a letter to the editor. Also the habba syndrome website is, just like in the previously deleted article, blatant self promotion and so fails WP:SELFPUB There is no reliable source given as to the reality of this syndrome. Gz33 (talk) 19:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC) [I agree with Tim, a merge does seem a better solution.]03:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mentioned by Uptodate here  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to Diarrhea. This proposed syndrome is based on a single publication, too new and too few sources to be a stand-alone article. Once other authors have studied this hypothesis and published their work I'd have no objection to spinning off a sub article but there is presently too little sourcing for this to be justified. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent suggestion Tim. I agree a merge and a redirect is best.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment, It is interesting to note that the suggesting parties recommending deletion are a chemist without any clinical patient experience and an emergency doctor who has never seen an outpatient practice or treated patients with this chronic condition. This entity DOES exist and thousands of patients have regained their lives as a result of therapy. Deleting it from Wikipedia will not effect the tremendous support that it achieved from the public who are desperately seeking help with "IBS-D". Leaving it can only benefit the public.  I am clinical  gastroenterologist and would strongly recommend keeping the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.154.6 (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)  — 68.192.154.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete and don't merge it to anywhere. Fails WP:V verifiability, may exist only in this one doctor's mind. Dr. Habba's announcement of his newly-discoved and self-named "syndrome," in the American Journal of Gastroenterology, was actually a letter to the editor, not a peer-reviewed article. One other person responded, also in a letter to the editor, and that is IT as far as the medical literature is concerned; a search of PubMed finds only those two mentions of Habba syndrome. A search of Google Scholar shows that Habba's original letter has been cited by others only six times. Google Books finds no mentions. Clearly this "syndrome" is not established in the mainstream literature. It's significant that the webpage which turns up on Google search for this term is called "Habba Syndrome - About Dr Habba". I have a hunch this is all about calling attention to himself. It's not unheard of for a doctor to define a syndrome, name it after himself, and use it to promote his practice. --MelanieN (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. The article at UpToDate, that you all seem to find so convincing, mentions in a short paragraph that "an association between bile acid malabsorption and gallbladder dysmotility has been described (Habba syndrome)" and cites Dr. Habba's letter. No, thanks. I'll continue to base my opinion on the actual published medical literature, which clearly does not support the existence or significance of this "syndrome". --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Question, Is UpToDate a reliable source? gz 33 (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if it is (which I don't know; it claims to be peer-reviewed but it is certainly not on the same level as a published, peer-reviewed journal) - even if it is a reliable source, it hardly provides the required SIGNIFICANT secondary-source coverage - with its carefully hedged comment that an association "has been described". "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" per GROUP. --MelanieN (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * ...So the article fails WP:N per WP:NRVE, as well as failing WP:V (WP:MEDRS: general systematitic views ), no? gz 33 (talk) 07:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Four votes for merge on vote for delete. I am not sure how the consensus is delete? BTW Uptodate has been deemed a reliable source by WP:MED Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:17, 24 June 2010 (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.