Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of allergies (2nd nomination)


 * 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   KEEP (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

List of allergies
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is a hodgepodge of random bits of information about things that can cause allergic reactions. In truth, the list is potentially endless and the reactions are too variable to put in this kind of framework. No attempt is made to link the random observations to actual scientific classifications of allergy. Delete. JFW &#124; T@lk  21:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yes it needs work, but I don't think deletion is the best course. It was kept by a large majority in April so I can't see this AFD being much different.--Michig (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My argument is that it cannot be salvaged even with work. The premise of the article is wrong. It must go. JFW &#124; T@lk  11:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - whilst I can empathise with the proposers concerns, the lack of completeness or its ordering or lack of such, does not seem to conflict with policy or guidelines. The references are plentiful and it is clearly marked as incomplete. I would favour improvement and expansion with some added cautions about reliance on such a list included in the header.  Velella  Velella Talk 22:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't need disclaimers, but we do need articles that are reliable and provide a useful framework. This article is neither, and there is no way in which this can be improved. Every biological compound can cause allergy, and the nature of the reaction is not usually related to the nature of the compound but to the immunological reaction to it. JFW &#124; T@lk  11:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. My condolences to anyone who refers to Wikipedia for medical advice.  That goes double if it's picked up unknowingly from an unscrupulous mirror.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  23:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can currently sympathise with that statement. However, WP:MED is working hard to render this statement obsolete in the future. This includes attempts to recruit new editors to medicine topics. JFW &#124; T@lk  11:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is currently an outrageous epidemic of allergies and the medical profession has been remarkably feeble in dealing with this because they don't seem to understand it, e.g. "GPs and other health professionals had poor knowledge of allergies". The hygiene hypothesis seems to be the best guess as to what's going on but few doctors seem to promote the idea that obsessive cleanliness is unhealthy and, instead, we have alcohol hand-washes spreading everywhere.  The idea that the topic should be suppressed to the extent that we don't even have a list of common allergies such as peanuts and cats seems to be absurd denialism. Warden (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete While I'm usually a fan of not punishing incomplete information, this list is dangerously incomplete and wrongheaded.  There is no limit to allergens, just ones that are more prevalent than others.  Likewise, there is no particular limit to the reactions that can be prompted in an allergic reaction, just ones that are more prevalent and commonly documented. Altering this list to eliminate those showstoppers... and there's nothing really left to build with, is there? Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The claims that the list is impossible to improve are obviously false. For example, a quick search immediately shows that the WHO maintains a classification system for allergens.  Here is their entry for the common allergen Fel d 1 which occurs in cat saliva.  There doesn't seem to be any reason that we couldn't improve the list to incorporate information of this kind and it is our editing policy to make such improvements rather than deleting. Warden (talk) 23:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 07:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisting Comment From a policy point of view, a list with no clear scope is indiscriminate information and therefore deletable and that's what I'm reading here. But for Col Warden's vote, I don't feel the keep side have addressed this and in a better attended debate might have deleted on that basis but the good Col has put forward a basis on which we could consider ordering allergen information. I think it would be extremely useful for the keep side to address a scope for this article (i.e moving to a list of common defined by X) and for the delete side to address the Col's argument that the WHO might give a scope around which to rescue the article. Spartaz Humbug! 07:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Does the scope have to be defined by the medical community? Can it be defined by what is considered notable by the mainstream media, i.e. what people are concerned with every day? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's an editorial judgement. Obviously it has to be a widely accepted scope, we wouldn't use fringepseudomedicine weekly as our scope definer because its fringe and POV pushing if it existed but back in the real world there simply needs to be a clear agreed scope that most editors can accept. If one can't be agreed this will be deleted eventually as you can't have an uncontrollable list like this with no clear basis for inclusion. Spartaz Humbug! 08:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The WHO data appears to provide a list of allergens, not a list of allergies. I think that's an important distinction because it does give us clear inclusion criteria:- the allergen must have a name approved by the IUIS Allergen Nomenclature Subcommittee (these guys) who appear to speak for both the International Union of Immunological Societies and the WHO.  Hey presto, we have a well-defined list that's clearly completable.  At first glance this looks like an important piece of background reading before starting the list.  NB: This is not necessarily to be understood as a "keep" !vote.  I'm proposing that what we need is an article that has a different title (list of allergens, presently a redirect to the article we're considering) and different content.  It's down to whether we think the current content is a helpful starting point or whether it's easier to start afresh.— S Marshall  T/C 13:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * One difficulty with the WHO scheme is that it seems to be confined to proteins which provoke type I hypersensitivity. It therefore excludes allergens such as nickel which provoke allergic contact dermatitis.  Readers should not have to understand the field in such technical detail in advance as Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a technical resource.  A suitable framework might be to present allergies here at a high level &mdash; common terms such as hayfever, food allergy and dermatitis.  It can then point to more detailed articles and lists which present the content in a more structured and detailed way. Warden (talk) 14:31, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * You both have good points. How about instead of changing the content, simply qualify the list by changing the lede to: "List of commonly described allergies", or something like that? After all, visitors to the page are not doctors. They don't say that they are having an allergic reaction to an allergen. They say that they are allergic to cats. They are ordinary people wishing to be informed by an article.
 * The absence of this list would leave visitors trying to find Allergen, and then clicking a bunch of blue links. I think they would prefer some sort of table with the most notable allergies laid out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment – Renaming to "List of allergens" would be functional for this article. (This link currently redirects back to this article). Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to List of allergens. This topic is notable. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete One can simply sum it up as "everything" per the full text of this . Yes one can be allergic to anything from heat to cold to pressure to any foreign substance breathed in, touched or eaten. Thus it is not a reasonable list. The causes only make sense in the context of how common they are and that belongs on the page allergy Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That source is about food allergy and food is not "everything" - not even close. People aren't allergic to many/most things such as rainbows or bicycles and so the claim of everything is absurd hyperbole.  Where there is a general class of items such as food then the list can deal with these by linking to a general article such as food allergy. Warden (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per DocJames. This is going to go nowhere good. --Legis (talk - contribs) 06:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – How so? Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment When it comes to lists we should consider both notability AND usefulness. I agree it would be more properly named List of allergens, because that's what it really is. Allergens are notable, so the question is : do we need a separate list article for this? Given the rather small size of Allergen I think this list should be merged into it, replacing the section Common allergens. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We're supposed to consider the potential state of the material, not its current state (which at AfD is often woeful). A proper article on allergens would be rather long, and so would a proper list of allergens.  I do think we want one article and one list in this case, rather than trying to make the article be all things to all people.— S Marshall  T/C 16:15, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The last AFD was in 14 April 2011 and had a massive number of people saying Keep. Anyway, it has ample blue links linking to Wikipedia articles for various types of allergies.  It can be rather useful for people wondering what sort of things they might be allergic to.  I just found out some people are allergic to their own semen. Semen Yikes!   D r e a m Focus  17:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It passes WP:LIST, and is properly sourced. Lack of a well-defined scope may be an issue, but that is for the talk page. It is not grounds for deletion. If the scope issue cannot be worked out at talk, then maybe consider AfD. So far, the only discussion on scope has been a single post at talk Talk:List of allergies, with a single reply. Where's the due diligence there? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * This debate is becoming very clouded by confusion about the difference between allergy and hypersensitivity. My understanding is that an allergy, formally defined, is anything leading to type I hypersensitivity. My understanding is also that anything that doesn't lead to type I hypersensitivity isn't an allergy, but a hypersensitivity.  Thus, although it's possible to become hypersensitive to virtually anything, it's not true that you can be allergic to virtually anything.  The list of allergens is finite and completable from the source I've already discussed.  I'm afraid I feel that !votes suggesting otherwise should be disregarded.— S Marshall  T/C 09:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The jargon of hypersensitivity types certainly complicates the matter. This would be a good topic area for an outline - presenting the lay reader with the overall structure of the field's articles and lists and so helping them to navigate to the right destination. Warden (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think that with medical lists like this one, lack of completeness should be a major concern.  For instance, Aspirin (one of the most common drug allergies) is not even on the list (except via NSAIDs, which do not directly mention it).  Perhaps either deletion (WP:INDISCRIMINATE) or a merge with allergens is a way to go.  Presenting this as though it were a complete list is potentially lethal to some reader or readers out there.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hope readers don't rely entirely on the Wikipedia for their medical information. And it says it isn't a complete list at the top, so I doubt anyone will be confused.  If you see anything that should be added, then do so.   D r e a m Focus  16:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * At the foot of every Wikipedia page, including this one, is a disclaimer which says "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY". We wouldn't be able to get anything done if articles had to be accurate and complete at all times.  For most topics that would be impossible - medical knowledge is advancing every day, for example.  Perfect is the enemy of good. Warden (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because there is a disclaimer doesn't mean that we should include potentially dangerously misleading information willfully. As has already been pointed out, this list is not complete, and will not ever be complete.  Anything can be an allergen.  Get over it.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC) Also, regarding "perfect is the enemy of good", is Mr. Warden seriously of the opinion that there is anything "good" about the list under discussion?  Fascinating.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "dangerously misleading information"? How is it misleading?  Do we need big bold text saying that not all allergies are listed?  Would anyone honestly be confused?   D r e a m Focus  17:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Medical information on Wikipedia, our disclaimer notwithstanding, needs to satisfy high requirements of completeness and accuracy at all times. This hodgepodge, based on a mixed bag of sources whose reliability is not always clear, is not only incomplete but also potentially dangerous.  Sandstein   18:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You could say that about thousands of medical articles &mdash; shall we delete all those too? For example, medical articles which are graded C are "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup.".  Articles of this sort include Anaphylaxis, Anxiety disorder, &c.  It is clearly not our policy to delete articles for this reason and our disclaimers make it very clear that readers should not be using them for medical advice.  If you think that's not enough then you could stick some cleanup banner tags on the article to make it even clearer that they are a work-in-progress.  Warden (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. You can be allergic to basically just about anything and everything. Now, if it would be renamed List of common allergies I could reconsider, but as of now no chance. Nageh (talk) 12:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Renaming an article is performed by using the move function, not the delete function. We are discouraged from moving the article during this discussion to avoid confusion, otherwise such bold improvement would already have been done. Warden (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand. Yet I don't see any indication that this list would be given a more proper title after this deletion discussion. Nageh (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed above. For example, S Marshall said "I'm proposing that what we need is an article that has a different title ...". Warden (talk) 13:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep see WP:DISCRIMINATE--this is a list of allergies, that is most definitely not "indiscriminate" by any consideration. It is well sourced and passes WP:LISTN. I'll stay out of the "renaming" issue because that is not a "deletion" issue.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It is indiscriminate by definition in that it could never be anywhere close to complete, as you can basically be allergic to just about anything, as I explained above. That includes but is not limited to just about any protein. Nageh (talk) 12:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Unable to complete" is not the definition of "indiscriminate" by any means that I can find. "Indiscriminate" means "without care or making distinctions" or in a "thoughtless" manner. This list is clearly not "indiscriminate" at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong keep ULTRASTAR123 &#124; KABOOM!  12:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By which rationale?


 * Comment. This list is problematic for so many reasons. First, you can be allergic to just about anything and everything, including but not limited to just about any protein. Second, the potential reactions you may show are not limited in any way, and can be all through category I to IV, albeit one is usually much more common. Third, potential reactions are largely dependent on the category the allergy falls in, and not the allergen by itself. Of course, digesting an allergen results in different reactions than inhaling or skin contact, yet the principle is the same for all allergens. Last but not least, this list will never include the more rare allergies just because you can be allergic to just about anything and everything. This list is indiscriminate. Nageh (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * PLEASE look up the definition of the word "indiscriminate" -- it doesn't mean what you think it means.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:INDISCRIMINATE indicates that we should not have "Summary-only descriptions of works; Lyrics databases; Excessive listings of statistics" and this is none of these things. Topics are not indiscriminate just because they are large or numerous &mdash; we have many lists with thousands of entries.  In this case, the list is not currently large and we can manage your objections easily.  If all proteins may trigger an allergic reaction then we can say this briefly as we just did here and link to protein so that readers understand what is meant.  We should also list the common examples and this may be done by using the WHO definition of a "major allergen", for example.  We are not required to list all proteins as we already have a list which does that and we can point to it:  list of proteins. Warden (talk) 13:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems like a workable basis. Let's see where it goes. Nageh (talk) 13:27, 17 December 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.