Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of diseases and conditions with unusual features


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

List of diseases and conditions with unusual features

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

Previous AFD: Articles for deletion/List of extraordinary diseases and conditions

There are no clear inclusion criteria, leaving the list open to essentially any subjective addition. kilbad (talk) 20:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The inclusion criteria should obviously be diseases whose features are considered unusual by reliable sorces. 189.105.119.191 (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The bottom line is every single disease has unusual features, from "the common cold can cause a fever, but it doesn't usually do so," on down the list. This article wants to be Ripley's Believe It or Not, which I don't accept as a proper reliable source for this purpose. This article could maybe be transwikied to Wikibooks, but it cannot meet Wikipedia's basic WP:V and WP:NOR policies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note:This was the user's first and only edit.  ceran ' thor'' 00:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. We've given this article several months to come up with some non-WP:NOR-violating criteria for inclusion, and it hasn't happened.  IMO, it hasn't happened because it can't happen:  despite assertions that we'll just follow the reliable sources, high-quality medicine-related reliable sources simply don't provide a basis for inclusion.  Reliable sources frequently describe diseases as "rare" (which has several legal and technical definitions, depending on purpose and jurisdiction), but the meaning of "unusual" in the medical literature is decidedly different from what this sensationalistic article wants.  For example, leukemia normally presents with high white blood cell counts, but some less-common forms, and some less-common states, present with low white blood cell counts (called aleukemia).  Low WBC counts is an "unusual feature" of leukemia.  But the editors don't want leukemia in this article, because it's not a gruesome, grotesque, or sensational disease.
 * Delete. The sources used do not meet Wikipedia guidelines re reliable sources, nor is the list encylopedic.  In the previous AFD, several recommendations were given to make this page into a list suitable for Wikipedia, nonetheless it remains unsuitable.  --Una Smith (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete To clarify: not only are there "no clear inclusion criteria", but that there is no hope of clear, objective, inclusion criteria. This article cannot be fixed, hence the AFD. Almost by definition, diseases have unusual features. Otherwise old age, being annoying, needing to sleep every night, and the hassle of having to shit now and again, would be classified as diseases. Distinctive, unusual features, are what doctors use to tell one disease from another. If it weren't for "unusual features", medical school would consist of learning to say "You look a bit poorly today; I hope you feel better soon." Extremely unusual features are what doctors write about when they want to have diseases named after themselves.


 * The extent to which as disease is "unusual" is inherently POV and a matter of opinion, not fact (see the policy WP:ASF which prevents us from listing opinions as though they were facts). This isn't resolved by citing reliable sources: we don't have lists of beautiful people or great paintings or boring novels, even though one could find sources for those opinions. If one were to create a List of rare diseases and establish an objective criteria (commonly defined as rarer than 1:2000 of the population) one could produce a NPOV and V list. It would contain between 6,000 and 8,000 diseases. That is not this list. Let me repeat that: this is not a list of rare diseases. Anyway, the Category:Rare diseases is better for that IMO, as it limits the number to those we actually have articles for. Colin°Talk 21:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, per blatant POV and OR. (Older arguments to use outdated books to justify current information should be ignored or discounted.)  As an example, Tourette syndrome is included on the list because it used to be considered rare or bizarre, and current research shows it to be a common condition.  This article is an OR magnet, and does not rely on sources that meet WP:MEDRS; it is inherently OR and POV.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, inherently unencyclopedic, per WhatamIdoing. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Delete - this is a load of rubbish. It's in poor taste, riddled with original "research", resembles Victorian fairground voyeurism, and has the potential to damage the project's well-deserved reputation for quality. WhatamIdoing is quite right in saying every "disease" has unusual features. I am ashamed to see this here.  Graham. Graham Colm  Talk 21:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - As the original creator of this article I agree on your points of having it deleted. As I wrote in the last deletion review, I wanted to give it a chance to show what it perhaps could evolve into with the combined effort of the community, but now it's just a complete disappointment to me - not much improvement to the article itself, but, on the other hand, a hell lot of controversy and dispute. Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Delete un-encyclopedic POV fork per above. Ward20 (talk) 21:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete "unusual" is inherently subjective, making this list original research and a violation of WP:NPOV. Coverage in reliable sources doesn't matter here, as what constitutes "unusual" will differ between sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per WhatamIdoing and Graham. They've said everything I could have, and more eloquently. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: POV article. Joe Chill (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Medicine-related deletions. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I really like this list in spite of its problems. Since that's not a proper reason, I am not !voting, but if I think about it for a while perhaps I will find a pretext to !vote keep. This AfD reminds me of List of common misconceptions, which also once survived an AfD with no consensus. There are some superficial similarities, but this list is much more focused and attracts much less nonsense. Basically the question is whether a specific article is sufficiently interesting to include it here. I would have thought that we can deal with this, and I think it's a bit of a stretch to describe this as a POV issue. Perhaps this list can be moved into portal space, and perhaps we need WP:WikiProject Edutainment to take care of such lists. I would see it as a service to those of our readers who like to learn the general basic facts of nature by reading about the most unusual and exciting special cases. Actually, outside my main areas of interest I am one of them. This kind of list doesn't need to be as carefully done as other, more serious ones. Nobody will be seriously misled by an erroneous decision about the conclusion or otherwise of an article. Hans Adler 23:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is absolutely no way this isn't a original research list unless some actual, reliable, scientific study from whatever organization handles odd and rare diseases (excuse my ignorance in this topic) is released. Also, per Sandy's comment about Tourette syndrome.  ceran  thor 00:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The name is the only reason people complain about it. Perhaps call we could rename it "a list of things with what a considerable number of people find interesting".  I said keep last time as well, at the first AFD for this article  There really should be a book listing just these things.   D r e a m Focus  01:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * How you plan to source that vague title? Hemorrhoids are interesting, too.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * List of diseases and conditions that at least 5 Wikipedia members state are interesting to read about. Everyone alright with that name?  Seriously, if enough people say each item is interesting, then consensus can be to keep it.  Remember, a policy in Wikipedia, that overrides any suggested guideline, is  Ignore all rules, which reads: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."   D r e a m Focus  02:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wiki uses reliable sources, not editor opinion. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, not always. Depends who is around at the time to post their opinions, and the opinions of the closing administrator.  We saved this article last time didn't we? ;)   D r e a m Focus  02:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, you suggest that if I find five editors who think hemorrhoids are interesting, we can "save this article"? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All things are possible, if you believe in yourself. I believe in you.  I honestly do.  Keep trying, and you can make all your dreams come true.   D r e a m Focus  02:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please try to base your arguments in policy, rather than vague aspirations. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Depends who is around at the time to post their opinions" – I agree. I wish the same people who are here now had been around at the AfD for List of common misconceptions.
 * At the very least I would say rather than deleting this article we should move it to WP:Unusual diseases, as a kind of subarticle of WP:Unusual articles. Having such a list leads to more people watching them, which is probably a good thing because we can expect more vandalism or other problematic edits in this area than for other diseases of similar rarity. It also helps editors looking for good topics to feature in portals, or to bring to FA standard. Remember there is a reason why the general media love such diseases. Hans Adler 08:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are essentially saying that because TV programs like "Extraordinary People" are popular, that a serious encyclopaedia should have an equivalent article. They are popular because there is no limit to the source they can draw on, the threshold for freakishness is remarkably low, and people like to stare. Based on such programs, we'd have to include obesity because there are some extremely fat people who can't get out of bed any more, eczema because a really bad case can be pitiful to look at, pregnancy (a condition) because of multiples, dementia because it is easy to get a laugh, allergies because some people claim to be allergic to everything, and so on. These have all been topics on these programs and you would find it hard to exclude them from this list because they meet the criteria. Truly this list shows medical ignorance and naivety, for once someone becomes really familiar with more than a few diseases, you realise they are all fascinating, unusual and bizarre in their own way. Colin°Talk 09:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Unusual" is not a neutral criteria — vvvt 09:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Merge with WP:Unusual articles, as per User:Hans Adler, after pruning a bit and keeping only the really unusual ones. The article has problems but it has value and it is interesting (and it is not completely random or unsourced). --Cyclopia (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And how will you define "unusual" in a way that is consistent with Wp:RS and WP:MEDRS, and what will be the difference between this and rare disorders? And, as an editor of medical articles, I find no evidence for the assertion that these article will receive more vandalism hence need more attention:  coprolalia receives far less vandalism or faulty edits than more common conditions, for example, tuberculosis.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In fact I am proposing of bringing the list out of article namespace and in the WP: namespace, just because of the concerns above. I mean, I agree it is not an encyclopedic list (otherwise I'd say "keep"), and in fact I'm proposing to take it out of the encyclopedia:, but I feel it is an interesting enough list (IMHO), even if idiosyncratic, to merit some inclusion of the material in the WP:Unusual articles page, which is not strictly part of the encyclopedia namespace (but it's funny and interesting enough to stay). --Cyclopia (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, I'll pick apart some of the medical ignorance in this article on the topic I know best there-- Tourette syndrome (TS). First, TS is neurological, genetic, not psychological (as classified on that page, but that can be fixed).  Second, neither tics nor TS are unusual or rare; tic disorders and TS were previously considered to be rare or bizarre, but that is now known to be incorrect information.  In fact, reliable sources define tics as "isolated disinhibited fragments of normal (emphasis mine) motor or vocal behaviors" (Cohen and Leckman, p. 23, and many others).   Third, if the intent is to define coprolalia as "unusual" because it is so rare even within TS, even that info is misleading, because coprolalia is present in many other conditions besides TS. So, I suspect if every entry on this page where scrutinized by knowledgeable medical editors and based on reliable sources, there would be little left.  On what basis are conditions to be included in this article, and how would that be different than the category for rare disorders? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This I completely agree. The list in fact needs a lot of pruning: TS in fact would have to be thrown away, while gephyrophobia or aquagenic pruritus can need mention. See comment above anyway: I am proposing a merge away from the article namespace. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Another example: the inclusion of Alice in Wonderland syndrome using that high impact WP:MEDRS source The Wall Street Journal. The real article states it's a "common experience at sleep onset". What's so unusual or unique, the name? This article will never be NPOV because the objective is a specific POV. Ward20 (talk) 18:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Again: it needs not to be in the article namespace. It can find inclusion in the WP:Unusual articles list, which is away from the namespace and explicitly idiosyncratic. --Cyclopia (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There. I merged what was worth merging, now I'm fine if deleted. --Cyclopia (talk) 12:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A somewhat futile Keep -- but I agree with Dream Focus that the major problem with this was its name, not the topic. Essentially, this is a list of existing Wikipedia articles concerning rare medical conditions, with additional context and citations to sources for the reader to consult for further information.   I find nothing offensive or unencyclopedic about the subject; each of the blue links is the exact title of the article, rather than a paraphrase.  Even the picture of the child with progeria is an image on that page.  I'll save it to my hard drive, since it appears that this will eventually result in a delete.  However, let the discussion run its normal course, since it's not a candidate for a snowball. Mandsford (talk) 19:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since you are asserting that this page contains "rare medical conditions", can you please support that assertion with reliable sources ? Since you also assert that there is a problem with the name, just how would either you or Dream re-name it so that it could comply with WP:V or WP:MEDRS or WP:NPOV? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 19:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are falling into the same trap as happened last time this went to AFD: that a List of rare diseases would be more acceptable and quite easy to reliably source (there are organisations in the US and EU that maintain a database of all diseases so-classified). That is not this list and so not relevant to this AFD. That article exists but is a redirect. If someone wants to start a real List of rare diseases then be my guest, but see my comments above about the size and practicality of such a list. Many of the entries in this list are not at all rare, just freaky. Colin°Talk 19:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons as before. The scope of the article cannot be suitably defined. It's content is subjective and unencyclopedic. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listing criteria inherently subjective. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There is indeed a book listing these things--though rather old, it's still the classic, here's a classic older book on the subject that should have been cited: Anomalies and curiosities of medicine ; being an encyclopedic collection of rare and extraordinary cases and of the most striking instances of abnormality in all branches of medicine and surgery, derived from an exhaustive research of medical literature from its own origin to the present day by  	George Milbrey Gould &  Walter Lytle Pyle,  Saunders, [1898], OCLC 249245631 that was republished  as Medical curiosities : adapted from Anomalies and curiosities of medicine by  George M Gould; Walter L Pyle,  Hammond Pub., 1992. OCLC	59921916. -- proof that material can be verified and is not necessarily SYNTHESIS & that there are objective criteria.  There are others. It's a topic that has a certain interest: human sensationalism can be notable. That is not to say that the book can be taken at face value for everything listed--even for its period, it was deliberately prepared to be an inclusive compendium including diseases that were reported as such. Like any older source, it has to be used with discretion.it's not scientific, but  it shows the interest in such things, the fact that people write books about them, and the fact that diseases and conditions can be qualified as unusual or extraordinary on the basis of what other people have said about them. A lot of what it reports is   poorly authenticated, and I would never use it as evidence for what something is; I certainly would use it as evidence for the view of what people considered something to be. There are many older books of this sort, which don't qualify as real science, but rather as earlier generations views of pop science. They appear weird or quaint today, but they are culturally significant none the less    DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps an article should be written about the book, as the dated curiosity that it is, but you made the same argument last time, the article hasn't improved, and it's an outdated source that isn't likely to meet WP:MEDRS.  That a very dated source exists doesn't mean we should tailor an article to it, unless the article is about the book.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 06:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That book would be an excellent source for the historical article on cabinet of curiosities, but not for a list that purports to be factual. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Subjective title/topic inhibits NPOV since one source could call a disease "unusual" while another could place it within a larger topic. Reliable sources don't cut it when the topic is subjective like this and a leap to original research is necessary to create the article, which is against our policy. A rename can't work as long as the topic is subjective and judgemental.  Them From  Space  07:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess it's a matter of perspective. I don't see anything wrong with the topic of the article itself.  SandyGeorgia has pointed out that there are statements in there that she knows not to be true, not to mention problems with POV in the writing, and I acknowledge that she, and other persons who have noticed errors, have more expertise than I on medicine.  My feeling is that when there is a blatant inaccuracy in an article (it drives me up the wall when someone says that Pearl Harbor happened on "December 7, 1942"), then it should be fixed by editing immediately, in order to prevent false statement from staying on Wikipedia.  I've edited out many an unfounded statement in articles, such as the one where someone wrote that when General Patton died "10,000 soldiers volunteered to be pallbearers".   My feeling is that, unless the topic itself is inappropriate for an article, then the decision to keep or delete should be made after errors are removed or corrected.  Perhaps there wouldn't be anything left of this article after the falsehoods were removed; still, I'd rather that there be something accurate that the average user could refer to, as opposed to nothing at all. Mandsford (talk) 13:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the entry on epilepsy from this article. It isn't "unusual"; it is the second most common neurological disease after stroke. The paragraph also contained a multitude of factual errors, and was unsourced. I got no end of grief from someone who claims to be an admin. If we all had to fix the falsehoods in articles prior to AfD, and get hassled for doing so, we'd spend all our time polishing turds and no time writing articles that deserve to exist. You say there's nothing wrong with the topic but how is it different to "List of beautiful women"? How would one define an "accurate" list of beautiful women? And why would anyone waste their time trying to fix errors in such a misguided non-encyclopaedic subject? Colin°Talk 14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * While I don't think anyone is obligated to replace incorrect information with corrected information, it is never a waste of time to remove an obvious falsehood, even in an article that should be deleted, nor to call a lie a lie. To do otherwise is to permit misinformation to masquerade as truth, even while the article goes through the slow discussion process.  I'm not saying that anyone should fix a lie by replacing it with "improved" content.  As to the person who claimed to be an administrator and gave you grief for removing false information, a self-righteous dumbass like that needs to be reported.  Nobody should ever attempt to deter you from editing the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mandsford (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I appreciate DGG's point, but I don't agree that one book defining something as "anomalous" is a definitive source that something is anomalous. May's Curious Facts, in many ways the direct inspiration of all modern "weird things" books, includes some things that would never be considered unusual my most people, and their listing doesn't make them anomalous. We grudgingly tolerate the wretchedly aren't-non-Americans-funny Unusual articles (maybe someone can explain just why Siachen Glacier, Project MKULTRA or Not proven are "unusual") because it's not in the mainspace, but "list of foo with unusual features" is just as subjective as "list of funny looking cars" or "list of hot women" except in those few cases where there's a broadly accepted definition of what is and isn't anomalous. – iride  scent  23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: only a subjective collection of miscellanea with no encyclopedic value.--Garrondo (talk) 06:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: I take DGG's point, but I agree that the issues voiced by a number of other commentators (WhatamIdoing, Sandy, Iridescent, etc) are prohibitive. When medical sources use the word "unusual", they tend to have in mind either uncommon presentations of common diseases or common presentations of uncommon diseases. This, on the other hand, seems to focus on symptoms that seem attention-grabbing to a layperson. I actually think that either definition is too hopelessly subjective to be feasible under Wikipedia's content policies. The strongest argument in favor of keeping the list is that Wikipedia ought to be interesting and fun to read. But that only goes so far. In the end, the sorts of interests addressed in this article are probably best satisfied by watching a few episodes of House or a trip to the Mütter Museum. MastCell Talk 17:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research, highly prone to subjective decisions of what is listed. I can think of no valid reason for keeping this article.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This list is harming the encyclopedia far more than it's helping it. What's next? List of diseases that Wikipedia editors find amusing? Eubulides (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have that. – iride  scent  21:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh - in that case... merge! :P Just kidding. MastCell Talk 23:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you didn't notice I did exactly that, and no kidding! (see above) --Cyclopia (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oy. MastCell Talk 01:06, 27 August 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.