Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incurable diseases


 * 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
 * While there are three editors who made suggestions to keep this article, the main view is that this is a list with no clear-cut criteria for inclusion, and even if such a criteria were to be developed, it would conceivably consist of many thousands of diseases. Another issue raised is the lack of any sourcing to indicate that the majority of these are indeed considered "incurable". There appears to be sufficient consensus to delete this article. --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

List of incurable diseases

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Absolutely pointless grab-bag of medical conditions. No attempt at referencing. Unlikely to ever become useful. JFW | T@lk  00:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Keep I cannot understand why you feel that this article is "an absolutely pointless grab-bag of medical conditions". It lists only diseases that cannot be cured, which is an important topic. I am in favor of saving the article and then adding references. Immunize (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps it would be better to use Category:Incurable diseases? Tisane (talk) 00:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is an existing underpopulated Category:Diseases with no known cure. 131.211.113.1 (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * About how many incurable diseases do you suppose there are? They don't seem to have figured it out on Yahoo. If it's not too many, or if we can find a way to limit the scope of the list to the more important ones, perhaps the article has a future. Tisane (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No offense, but what they have and have not figured out on yahoo answers has no value here. Beach drifter (talk) 01:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Lacking access to academic databases, that was unfortunately all I could dig up after a few minutes Google searching, which may say something about the viability of the list. Argh, Ebru News says "there are still a number of devastating illnesses with no known cure" but it doesn't give any estimates. Tisane (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Why not "List of diseases with no known cure?" Can sources for all (or any) of these diseases be found to show that they are actually incurable? Beach drifter (talk) 01:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with suggested move. That title would be more accurate. Tisane (talk) 01:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —PDCook (talk) 02:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Concur with suggested move Also concur with suggested move per . Immunize (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, source, and move per Beach Drifter, Tisane and Pdcook, to List of diseases with no known cure. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that I haven't actually weighed in on this issue (yet); I only listed this discussion in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. PDCook (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete An inadequately referenced list of links, with absolutely no discussion whatsoever. This silly "list" could go on and on. It's also confusing; many of these conditions are treatable. Readers who do not understand the difference between treatment and cure could be dangerously misled. Graham Colm (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * An article lead explaining the difference between treatment and cure might suffice to clarify the matter to readers. Tisane (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete A "silly list" that has a vague selection criteria and impossible length. Genetic diseases are essentially incurable today. There are many thousands of them. Most infectious illnesses aren't "cured" -- you get better by yourself. As they say, there's no cure for the common cold, but few people fail to get over it. Whether a particular disease can be cured also depends on the circumstances of each case. So to be present in this list, would it need to be curable some of the time, most of the time, all of the time or only in a few lucky individuals? Then there's the whole disease/disorder/condition/different/normal conflict. What if the "cure" wasn't to 100% full health. Colin°Talk 20:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Note I have stated in the lead paragraph of this article that some of these disease have treatments that may prolong life expectancy to "normal or near normal" to address the concerns above. Immunize (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, a reply to Tisane's last comment). Yes it could, but there isn't one. But, I don't like the title and concept of this list at all—it is tantamount to scaremongering. The suggestion to move to "no known cure" is a good one, but the problem wrt treatment/cure still remains. I also think the treatment and cure dichotomy is too polarised as often cures are developed from treatments as the science progresses. Should the article be renamed but the important distinction between treatment and cure be not fully addressed, the problem will remain. Then there is the issue of referencing; for an article with such a doom-laden title these must be of the highest standard, not just links to webpages, but review articles in prestigious medical journals. To be honest, I don't think this will be done quickly enough. It is easy to say keep and etc. etc. but will this be done? I would need some strong reassurances. Graham Colm (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per Colin. Pcap ping  01:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. Without clear criteria for inclusion, or a clear definition of "cure", this list could simply be "list of all diseases". A number of the listed conditions are cured in some cases. Time cures self-limited diseases. Unless some unambiguous criteria can make this into a relevant and accurate list, it should be dropped.Novangelis (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we should exclude from the definition of "incurable" those diseases that go away by themselves after awhile. Thus, HPV would be incurable because it remains in the body for life and medicine has no way of getting rid of the virus once someone has it, but measles would be excluded from the list because the body provides its own cure. I think that in this way, we can set a reasonably precise criterion for inclusion in the list. Tisane (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Note I have added an incurable and always fatal disease, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, to the list with a reference that certifies it is incurable. Immunize (talk) 18:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Think of it this way: You are providing sources supporting separate claims:  that an apple is red, a toy wagon is red, and a car is red. What you need to produce is a source that says that color is a good way to classify/group/associate objects. You can use a source that makes a list based on curability, or a source that says someone ought to make such a list, or a source says that people generally classify diseases as "curable" and "incurable", etc. However, if no such sources exist, then Wikipedia does not want a List of red objects, because although we can demonstrate that some individual things are red, we cannot demonstrate that their redness matters enough to bother making a list. (It would still be acceptable to mention the color of the objects in the individual articles, Car, Apple, Toy wagon, just not to group or associate these unrelated objects on the basis of what the editor -- but no reliable source -- perceives as a common characteristic.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not see any disease that has a cure in this list, though one could argue that self-limited diseases such as the Measles or influenza are not incurable, as they are (typically) self limiting. I disagree that these diseases should be removed, as, taking the measles example, a person develops severe complications such as pneumonia or "black" (hemorrhagic) measles, there is no treatment other than general supportive measures, nor is there any treatment that will hasten recovery from measles. Thus, I support the inclusion of self-limited diseases in the list, as long as they are without any known cure (time not included). For instance, I would not support including streptococcal pharyngitis in the list, as it has a cure, antibiotics. Immunize (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete This is an essentially pointless, non-educative, unencyclopedic list, and, the entries will number in the many thousands, which makes it so unwieldy that it won't be useable even for navigation.  Every single genetic disorder is "incurable" by modern standards, and there are more than six thousand just in one sub-type (single-gene disorders).  Furthermore, there aren't any good sources that think "curability" is a good way to classify medical conditions, which suggests that this violates WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, WP:NOR, and WP:V.  Immunize, please, I beg you, stop creating new pages until you have more experience with sourcing.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please specify my specific sourcing errors. Immunize (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You have failed to provide any source that shows that "curability" is a useful or valid way to classify diseases.
 * I notice that lists are required to contribute significantly to the state of human knowledge, per SALAT. It seems to be me that a list of diseases with no known cure could serve some purposes. E.g., a student wanting to do a thesis on some disease or another that is presently lacking a cure might find our list on Google and find it helpful in narrowing the focus down to a particular disease lacking a cure. I have noticed that whenever one is reading a pamphlet about an incurable disease, it will usually mention that it's incurable. I realize that's not a reliable source, but without access to university databases, it's the best I can do for now. Expect higher-quality input on AfDs from me after I gain access to said databases. :) Tisane (talk) 15:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per many of the arguments of Colin, Graham Colm and WhatamIdoing. Particularly, the meanings of "disease" and "incurable" are actually quite difficult to neatly define. I think the list will become cumbersome and unmanageable, and it suffers from the same problem as the List of fatal diseases article. Both seem like lists for the sake of making lists. PDCook (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The concept of incurable disease seems well-established as in this source, for example, and commonly occurs in the context of euthanasia. That the article may not be improved in accordance with our editing policy is not established and so there is no good case for deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the source you give shows that in an individual person, their disease may be determined to be incurable. The concept of "incurable" as a boolean attribute of a disease (in all people under all circumstances and at all times) has been shown to be useless. Colin°Talk 12:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Colin is right, and additionally, "some patients die, so physicians should be prepared to deal with that" (what the source supports) is not the same as "we should organize our concept of diseases around whether or not they can be cured". This source (which might be useful at articles like Incurable and Dying) does not attempt to create a list of incurable diseases or to recommend that this feature be considered important in classifying diseases.  Because our ability to cure disease is both technology- and culture-bound, and the medical profession avoids organizing diseases on this basis:  it too frequently changes to be useful or appropriate.  The medical profession, and Wikipedia, does (and should) classify diseases in other ways, e.g., by affected organ systems.  These kinds of lists would be easily supportable, and in fact, we have an extensive List of cutaneous conditions as an example of a desirable and policy-compliant list.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete heavily subjective and ultimately unmaintanable. Binary lists of this nature are just awful. It's one to have, say "A list of UK Prime Ministers" or a "List of Olympic 100 meter champions" because inclusion on the list is truly binary -- you either are or you aren't, and no one can dispute these facts. But binary lists that require subjective interpretations (what does cure mean? What does disease mean?) degrade the overall quality of the website, lower inclusion standards, and are generally inaccurate.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Criteria is too vague - see talk:List of incurable diseases. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Medicine is advancing so rapidly, who is going to keep this uptodate? What can't be cured today might be "curable" in a couple of years time. How do we define no cure? Where there is no known cure but the disease can be slowed down drastically or there is nothing to slow the disease down? How many incurable diseases are we going to have? One hundred, five hundred, one thousand or five thousand? Who is going to trawl through the medical literature to source all of this? I can see little benefit but lots of problems with this list. I am of the opinion that whether a disease is curable or not should be sourced and "discussed" on individual articles.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:49, 18 February 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.