Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of extraordinary diseases and conditions


 * 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. One two three... 03:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

List of extraordinary diseases and conditions

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

This is a list of the "extraordinary" (title) or "unusual" (lead) or of "unique cause, presentation, symptoms or treatment" (lead) diseases and conditions. The list makes no attempt at providing an objective criteria with which we can judge if an entry is extraordinary and provides no sources for any of the list entries that enable us to verify if an entry is extraordinary. There are sources, but they verify the prose, not that the list entry criteria have been met. This list is currently 100% original research.

The subject is not merely those diseases that are rare, for that is served adequately by Category:Rare diseases. Such a list of rare diseases can have an objective criteria (commonly defined as rarer than 1:2000 of the population) but since there are estimated to be between 6,000 and 8,000 distinct classified rare diseases it would not be useful to attempt to reproduce such a list in one article on Wikipedia -- the category is adequate as it lists only those for which we have articles.

The current contents of this list includes extremely common conditions (e.g., Guinea worm disease, Pica and Supernumerary body part). One is left with the distinct impression that the list merely contains the gross and the weird, such as appear on populist medical programs like Extraordinary People.

I don't believe that this or a similar list can establish an objective entry criteria that could be verified by serious reliable sources. See also discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Colin°Talk 17:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No objective criteria can ever be established (WP:V). News sources saying "bizarre illness" or even case reports saying that, are mere sensationalism and not scientific. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-objective and inconsistent list violating WP:OR. Supernumerary body parts is a good example given above as a condition included that is not even particularly extraordinary. Perhaps the editor is a fan of "Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine". Drawn Some (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - I posed the following question before, who determines what items are "extraordinary"? My feelings are the same as Steven's, that "no objective criteria can ever be established." ---kilbad (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep.
 * It doesn't have to be original research. Googling "unique diseases", "extraordinary diseases" etc gives lots of external references. Every entry could be referenced, similarly to List of unusual personal names or other articles in the category Category:Lists of things considered unusual. The proper criteria for what to include or not could be expanded as we learn what kind of additional entries are added to the list.
 * This article is not redundant just because there is a Category:Rare diseases. It is the causes, presentations or treatments that are unusual for these cases. Indeed, with current criteria, the disease or condition itself may not necessarily be extremely rare.
 * And it's not some kind of sensationalist exhibition. The entries don't necessarily have to be utterly fantastic, and as long as the list isn't reaching inconvenient length, then it's fairly okay that "less sensationalistic" also are added to the list. I admit that the list may tend to promote facts that are of interest to the human reader, making the inclusions deviate slightly from what would have been included by a review and selection among all known diseases based strictly upon the criteria. But, as long as we are aware of that deviation and keep it from going too far, I actually think that's a good thing.

Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mikael, you refer above to "with current criteria". I interpret this statement as meaning that some criteria for inclusion currently exist.  Please tell me (and at least a dozen other editors that have asked you this):  What are the "current criteria" that you refer to?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as Kilbad. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator and Steven, I just can't see the verifiability in this topic and I feel it's made redundant by the rare diseases category, despite Mikael's opinion above. At the very least, this article needs renaming, but combined with the lack of verifiability, I can't see any means for inclusion. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 19:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There'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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 21:32, 18 May 2009
 * Are you having a laugh, DGG? Sourcing a modern encyclopaedia to a book Amazon describes as "written in 1896 by physicians George M. Gould and Walter L. Pyle, cataloguing the true and the apocryphal (they don't make much of a distinction) from medical literature going as far back as ancient Rome. Some of this stuff is very definitely false, in an "I can't believe Victorians believed that!" sort of way; some is definitely true; and most of the stuff in between is hard to believe, but who knows? Science can be stranger than fiction. Is it really possible for a woman to vomit up fetuses..." You can read the book here; quite incredible. But how can "extraordinary" be determined objectively? Sure you can cite subjective opinions on what this person or that person deems "extraordinary" but there is no objective threshold one can set. If "extraordinary" is a subjective judgement, this list is no different from "List of great paintings" or "List of beautiful people", where one can find opinions to cite but no consensus on what should or should not be contained. Colin°Talk 22:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My comment regarding the author of the article being a fan of "Anomalies and Curiosities of Medicine" was negative criticism, not a suggested source. I have a copy and it makes for good bedtime reading but it is totally unreliable. The late Victorian period was rife with books about oddities, strange collections, and fake genealogies. DGG I find it hard to believe you have actually seen the book if you are suggesting it as a reference or precedence. Drawn Some (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. About half of all women who have given birth have chimerism (see Gadi 2009, ), so how in the world could chimerism be listed as an extraordinary disease or condition? Anyway, I agree with Colin, Steven and Kilbad. This list is not encyclopedic and can't easily be made so. Eubulides (talk) 22:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unless there can be a better criteria for inclusion. The word "extraordinary" is opinion and as such there cannot be a neutral, encyclopedic list from that criteria. Another question to pose: Isn't most diseases out of the ordinary anyway? This list could be 100x longer than it is currently with everything possible that could be "wrong" with someone. Tavix | Talk  02:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The word "extraordinary" is very subjective. --Maverx (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I was directed here by a post at Talk:List of musical works in unusual time signatures. There is nothing wrong with this article in principle. However, in practice, its authors have failed to properly source the claims that these diseases are extraordinary (which I take to mean "rare"). Rarity is not an entirely subjective determination (clearly, certain diseases are much less common than others), though the cut-off between what is rare and what is not must inevitably be determined arbitrarily. As long as that cut-off is defined by a reliable source (say, a medical journal), I see nothing wrong with building a list about rare diseases. If size is a concern, simply tighten inclusion criteria: limit entries only to those diseases for which there are articles (that is, those whose notability has been proven). Or, find a reliable source that identifies what qualifies as very rare (perhaps 1 in 10,000 births--it all depends on what the source says), and just list those that qualify. Even very large lists can be useful if divided into manageable chunks, as was done with List of atheists. And don't forget that lists can be useful in ways that categories cannot. Nick Graves (talk) 05:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A potential List of rare diseases is discussed in the AfD lead and there are accepted thresholds of rarity one could use. However, that is another list really and not a reason to keep this one. This one currently (and by definition) includes common diseases that are merely gross. Colin°Talk 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: discussions on User talk:Mikael Häggström and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine makes it clear that by "extraordinary" this user does not mean "rare", but rather sensational, bizarre, etc., by that user's own estimation.  --Una Smith (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sensational or bizarre diseases might be an acceptable subject for a list, provided reliable sources are found that identify each listed disease as such. Failing that, the list is, of course, original research and unverified. Nick Graves (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't produce lists that are a result of cherry-picking cited opinions. That's why the criteria have to be objective. Otherwise we'd have lists of "amazing people" or "boring novels" or "sensational films" or "dull towns". Colin°Talk 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete for the same reason I rejected this article's DYK nomination: without some reliable sources to establish that "extraordinary disease" is a real concept and part of a physician's register, rather than just a collection of examples cherry-picked by one editor, then this article is entirely subjective. As far as I can tell, the creator has not responded satisfactory to numerous requests to supply such sources, so there is no longer any reason to keep this article. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 21:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Canvassing concerns: This list's author left messages at about half a dozen somewhat similar lists to seek advice.  If you came to this discussion because of reading such a note, please include that information in your comments (as, for example, Nick Graves did above).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think Mikael Häggström's messages on those talk pages are appropriate, however annoying. I think the fact that those messages have not resulted in support for keeping this page is useful information.  --Una Smith (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep
 * The category of rare diseases contains an overwhelming number of articles (321). Therefore, I believe it's helpful to have a pared down list such as this one.  It's very readable.
 * The mere expression of the opinion that something is "extraordinary" is harmless and inconsequential. It does not, in my opinion, constitute, WP:original research.  I think we all agree that the material, itself, has been verified.  As long as that's true, then what harm is there in including it in a list?  Not harm, rather, I see a benefit.  Again, it's very readable and a useful collection.
 * I'm hard pressed to think of a better place than Wikipedia for such a list. If there were such a place, I would wish that others could contribute, as in a wiki.
 * I don't imagine too much difficulty maintaining the list in the future. I trust that any abuses can be easily dealt with in the course of normal operation and will not result in unreasonable amount of work for editors.  Common sense and a show of good faith among editors should be sufficient to police this.


 * I think strict rules need not apply, here. Not everything in Wikipedia needs to be so deterministic.  The world, for sure, is not so nice and neat.  Why Wikipedia?  There's room for leniency, I think.  Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 04:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As for this replacing the Rare Diseases category.... well, this is not a list of rare diseases (a term that has a very specific definition, at least in the U.S., and I think a similar one in Europe). It's a list of diseases that one editor found interesting. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- &mdash; G716  &lt;T·C&gt; 00:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't normally like this sort of article, but this one doesn't seem as problematic as I'd feared; all the conditions listed so far are clearly pretty unusual, and would widely be described as such. I understand there are concerns about sensationalism, but arguably that could apply to many other articles on medical topics; I don't think we should delete an article just because it seems a bit 'tabloid-y'. I would suggest that this article should probably be renamed to List of unusual diseases and conditions, though; 'extraordinary' is a bit POV. Robofish (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - If we keep this list, I think a rename is definitely needed. This is a list of "extraordinary" disease.  What if I personally find myocardial infarction to be an extraordinary disease process and want to include it?  With the current name, there is nothing keeping me from doing so. ---kilbad (talk) 13:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "unusual" is defined as either "remarkable/out-of-the-ordinary" or "rare". The latter meaning is discussed above. The former meaning is no different to "extraordinary" and is subjective therefore not suitable criteria for a list on Wikipedia. Colin°Talk 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Being rare could be subjunctive too, unless you put a definite number on it such as "1 in 100,000" or something. Tavix | Talk  20:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The convention used by numerous government agencies and advocacy organizations is that a rare disease has an incidence or prevalence not higher than 1 in 2,000. There are many thousands of rare diseases, some with articles on Wikipedia:  see Category:Rare diseases.  --Una Smith (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: just because it's not problematic yet, doesn't mean it couldn't become so in the future in the abscence of clear criteria to define 'extraordinary'. What guideline will we use in discussions about inclusion? Or will we just let expert opinion decide without a reliable definition, is that what we want? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep It is not our job to decide what is extraordinary. This is done by reference to sources which so describe the disease or condition. This is not difficult as I have demonstrated by adding a citation.  Per our editing policy, the list just needs more work, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:ASF, which is policy. We are not allowed to assert opinions as though they are facts. That something is "extraordinary" is an opinion, and although that is citable we can't use it as an inclusion criterion for a list. We are forced to say "Joe Bloggs regards XYZ as an extraordinary disease...". We cannot say "XYZ is an extraordinary disease" in the same way (using the example from policy) we are not allowed to say "The Beatles are the greatest band ever". Colin°Talk 13:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see List of mountains or List of rivers by length. It is ultimately a matter of opinion whether an elevation is a mountain rather than a hill, or how long a river is, but it would be unreasonable to forbid mention of them here on these grounds.  Being extraordinary, unusual or rare is just a matter of frequency which is a simple statistic of a similar kind and such statistics are commonly collected for medical matters.  The list seems fine and my opinion of it remains unchanged. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Other crap exists. But those lists could set an (arbitrary) absolute threshold on height/length. As for the river length, just because there is disagreement on how to measure the length of certain rivers, doesn't make a length published by an authority just "opinion". Regardless, you are confusing extraordinary with rare. I have no problem with a list of rare diseases, it would be over-long IMO but I wouldn't AfD it, but that is not this list. This is a list of the weird and not even rare-weird. Allowing this list means List of ugly politicians would be acceptable, provided one could cite a derogatory comment in a newspaper. Colin°Talk 16:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Look up the definition of the word ordinary and then extraordinary. Plenty of references, and a very good and interesting list.   D r e a m Focus  17:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete unclear lines of delineation make this list a cruft magnet. "extraordinary" by whose judgement? KillerChihuahua?!? 17:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete. It's an interesting list. However there is no reliable source to define the scope of the article and demonstrate notability. It's content is subjective and unencyclopedic. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  20:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete there is no current working definition (and i can not see my way through to the creation of one) that would adequately define an extraordinary or unusual disease. The list requires an act of original research every time an edit is made. "Extraordinary" and "unusual" are of course highly subjective terms.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It's totally subjective. NCurse work 06:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This list has no sourcing criteria - "list of diseases some editor thought was wierd that day." Hipocrite (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider a name change to bring it more in line with the "unusual" set of articles. I agree "extraordinary" is vague. There are several books and articles on rare and unusual diseases, and inclusion in one can be a criteria. "Unusual" also appears in JAMA article titles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete pretty much per nom. Lists like this can not have vague terms in the subject, as it disrupts any attempt at a NPOV article.  No matter what sourcing one can find to claim a disease is "extraordinary" one can find a counter source to claim that it isn't.  In essence, nothing can be verified to meet WP:V.  Them  From  Space  10:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I have indeed seen the book I referred to; actually, I've known it for many years as the standard reference of its sort. I don't judge books by what is written about them in Amazon, but the Amazon description includes the whole preface which describes the book correctly as a compendium of about the same status as early versions of Believe it or Not.  : 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. There is a proper use of t=books like this as there is of the old EB used so frequently and wrongly in WP: to show what people thought about things in  a particular historical period.  I resent the imputation that I would use something I didn't know in this manner--I do not work that way, and when i refer to something I know only by seeing it in Worldcat--or Amazon--I  say so. Actually, I thought of it immediately when I saw this afd, and then went to find the citation. I did not go back to look at a copy,for it is perfectly clear visually in my mind. I do not forget interesting or curious books that I have actually seen and read--or even seen, for that matter. I don't memorize what's in them,. but I remember the general nature--I remind  you that this is my profession, and my experience enriched by working for decades as the bibliographer in this subject in a very large library with extraordinarily extensive old-fashioned print collections. When this book had a modern reprint, the reprinters too knew what they were doing. DGG (talk)
 * Comment It seems you're advocating the use of a highly unreliable source even in its day. But what's worse, the source is from a different era when medical knowledge was far, far shallower than it is today. Let's take Tourette's syndrome which was first described as a medical condition shortly before that book was published. Yet for 60+ years Tourette's was seen as not only rare but described with terms like "extraordinary," "astonishing," etc... Though i don't have a copy of this book in question, there's a very good chance it (reflecting many other books from that era that i have seen) describe Tourettes with some synonym for "rare" or "extraordinary." But all those long-ago sources are wrong. Research since has taught all of us that Tourette's is neither particularly rare or particularly unusual. But tourette's would end up in this useless, misleading list all the same because we aren't enforcing basic standards requiring limited subjectivity (in chosing the scope of encyclopedia articles) and inclusion of information with only iron-clad evidence from the most reliable sources. Any book on medical oddities published in the 19th century, while fascinating, should be dismissed out of hand when considering what sources to use to describe the current state of play in the medical sciences. Sheesh.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * right, and the information here is conditions and diseases that have been viewed as extraordinary and the article needs to be explain that. The book was reliable for what it covered, which was, quite explicitly, the popular view of things over centuries. I used it   as example--there are   other non-scientific discussions  to use for this sort of thing.  The historical state of knowledge is taken into account in articles on older scientific concepts. The article would need to be reworks to  much more explicitly not   describe " the current state of play." I think it does it by implication-- "unusual", as everyone has commented, is not a scientific evaluation. Unfortunately, much as I would like to, i do not have time to rewrite the article. There's too much that needs to be defended. DGG (talk) 20:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * DGG, I guess you're wanting a response since you left a message on my talk page. I think you're just digging the hole you're in deeper with these responses.  If you are familiar with the book then you what are suggesting is even less encyclopedia-like.  Your reputation as a 30 year Princeton library specialist is not what's at stake, 12 year olds get as much respect as anyone else here, heck, I might have been the head librarian at Princeton for all you know or I might be a precocious 9 year old, no matter.  This is just about whether or not this particular article should be deleted as inappropriate for one established reason or another.  Please let's don't continue this drama much less keep trying to expand it. Please, let's try to keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and not Ripley's Cabinet of Curiosities.
 * This Way to the Egress >>> Drawn Some (talk) 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (after ec) DGG: Are you proposing a rename to List of diseases considered extraordinary in the 19th century? Or something of a "history of science" nature like The evolution of medical thought on what is or is not an extraordinary disease or condition? In both those cases, i agree this book would be an excellent source. But those articles are not before us. This article implies that the listed things are really extraordinary. My problem with the subjectivity of the term i've already explained, but a secondary concern i have with these kinds of articles is their inherent vagueness which allows for some people to say "if anything was ever said to be extraordinary, it belongs" others to say "No. It has to actually be demonstrably extraordinary (never mind that "extraordinary" is ill-defined)," and still others to say "doesn't that bug that was put in Kirk's ear in the Wrath of Khan belong?" We have articles on these diseases, where the history of thought about these diseases is discussed along with the silly things once believed about them and the modern state of medical knowledge. This, however, is just a barnacle pole for misinformation, fuzzy-headed additions, and daily neutrality and OR problems.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)(
 * I accept the book could (perhaps even should, if it is as notable as it appears) be used to justify a comment in the lead on the historical "interest in such things". But lists don't get AfD'd because of deficiencies in the lead; we are interested in whether one can define a set of entries for the list that passes our policy pages. That book only contains the outdated opinions of two non-notable guys. We don't make lists of such opinions, and I find it "extraordinary" that some folk here think we do, no matter how interesting the subject is. Colin°Talk 20:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The book itself could certainly be the subject of an article. Drawn Some (talk) 20:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per everything above. There is nothing more I can add that hasn't already been said. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:32, 25 May 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.