Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatcher-Murphy Disorder


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Hatcher-Murphy Disorder

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Article on a medical condition that a single doctor claims to have discovered, and formulated a treatment for. I originally speedily deleted the article as advertising, because it was full of language promoting this doctor's practice and his treatment for the condition. As recreated, the article is less spammy, but now it seems to (1) desribe original research, in violation of WP:NOR, and (2) lack any reliable independent sources, in violation of WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. HMD seems to be one "whole health" doctor's made-up theory.  That in and of itself isn't particularly relevant, but my searching shows that this doesn't pass WP:GNG.  I certainly can't find independent sources.  --Glenfarclas (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Nothing about this alleged syndrome can be found in PubMed, the definitive medical search tool. Well, that's probably because the inventor of the disorder is a chiropractor. However, nothing turns up at chiroindex.org either; apparently the guy has never published his idea in a peer-reviewed journal. The article claims his theory "refutes the current medical paradigm" for frozen shoulder syndrome and applies a "novel chiropractic adjustment". Talk about WP:OR original research! Also totally flunks the WP:RS reliable source test: he supplies 20 supposed references, but two are Wikipedia pages and all the others are from OTZ which is his own proprietary website. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN
 * Additional comment if the decision is to delete: Considering that this is the second go-round for this article, and considering the comments here indicating that this "disorder" is not generally recognized in the field, might you consider salting it as well as deleting it? Just a thought. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. No precedent in literature, not recognised. JFW | T@lk  00:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable, self-published source.Novangelis (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Google Scholar shows no sources that use this term. Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 15 December 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.