Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incurable diseases (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 delete. Clear consensus to delete. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

List of incurable diseases
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

Nearly the same problems as with the previous version that was deleted by consensus – an, to quote. The term "incurable" is not defined at all (violating WP:LISTCRITERIA). The definitions are not aligned with disease articles, some entries have attracted doubtful medical advice from drive-by editors.

Also worth keeping in mind that upwards of 95% of the 7,000+ known diseases have not only no cure but even no approved treatment, so the purpose of this article is not at all clear. — kashmīrī  TALK  07:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —  kashmīrī  TALK  07:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —  kashmīrī  TALK  07:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

*Keep Rename List of diseases that there is currently no cure for. This is a perfectly valid list article, groups things in a logical manner, and adds in navigation, plus provides additional information.  D r e a m Focus  18:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, "an absolutely pointless grab-bag of medical conditions," as stated above for a previous version Athel cb (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons already stated. Would be better as a category. AdoTang (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. That's an excellent suggestion (if someone wants to implement it). Athel cb (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. My views on the matter are unchanged. JFW &#124; T@lk  16:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, The list seems unnecessary, listing these diseases in categories will be encouraged. Iflaq  (talk) 11:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you consider a cure for a disease caused by a gene mutation? A therapy that alleviates the symptoms but must be taken for life? A therapy that repairs the mutated gene? Can you define cure? What if a treatment does away with all symptoms in some patients but not in others? — kashmīrī  TALK  21:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * List of diseases exist and groups everything into other lists. Better way to sort things than this list.   D r e a m Focus  01:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are multiple ways to classify diseases, proteins, and other biological entities. They are not alternative classifications, but rather classifications based on different properties of objects. This is normal. Yes, some classifications are better and more scientifically justified than others. Yes, this is not one of these better classifications. Nevertheless, such list/way of classification has every right to exist in WP context simply because it is based on terminology widely used in scientific literature (see Google Scholar links in my comment below). My very best wishes (talk) 04:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete There are entire classes of diseases, such as the many thousands of genetic disorders, that cannot be cured, or sometimes even treated, with current technology. The scope of the list is unclear as well, since we do not define what is a cure or what is a disease. Standards were much lower in 2010, when the last AfD closed as delete, so it is unlikely that will change this time. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 00:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is merely a list. It's no threat to providing quality accurate information to the public. If any rules exist within Wikipedia which would make this list article inappropriate, I still advocate for keeping it per WP:BRAR. --Greysonsarch (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. This "category" of diseases simply has no scientific justification. One can reasonably argue that even many genetic disorders are treatable and therefore in a reasonable sense are curable. My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename to List of terminal illnesses Given that the terminology, i.e the "incurable diseases" was widely used in literature (see Google Scholar, see also untreatable disease), one can justify the existence of such list, assuming that inclusion of every item was sourced. Even though this is not a scientifically solid terminology and not a part of any solid classification of diseases (I think). My very best wishes (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete The Google Scholar search is an actual argument against this list. If one checks the first page of search results for "incurable" and "untreatable diseases" (note that these don't mean the same thing), they mostly come across conditions that wouldn't make it to the list in question, either because the term is used to describe incurable cases: cases or forms or subsets of diseases that are incurable, not actual, self-contained diseases (unresectable brain metastases are incurable, but they do not constitute a "disease"); or because the disease in question was untreatable in former eras of medicine; or because it refers to diseases that cannot be eradicated, yet are treatable. This highlights another problem of the list, how many different definitions of "incurable" one can work with. An essay on the subject proposes as a test for the legitimacy of a list of X the question "if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article". No such article as "Incurable disease" exists - and I would propose its deletion if it did - because it would have to cover so many definitions of the term that the article would lose its meaning, becoming something of a chimera article. Medical literature can indeed describe a disease as incurable, but there is not such thing as the study of incurable diseases, or a book on it, as it is an extremely diverse topic. There is no actual question that this list answers. NikosGouliaros (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, sure, there are multiple definitions, disagreements between sources if something was incurable, it can be incurable only for certain patients, etc. This is not a scientifically solid terminology I think. But so are many other subjects in medicine and humanities. This does not invalidate such subjects as long as they have been described in multiple RS. Consider Definition of terrorism for example. I think that a page on the general subject of incurable disease would be legitimate simply because it was described as a coherent subject in multiple RS (a couple of examples from 1st page of Google scholar search:, ), hence this would not be WP:COATRACK. This is a well known term in medical literature. Only that matters. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Scholar links you offered focus on the question of care to patients who suffer from an incurable condition; they don't claim that certain diseases are, and others are not, incurable. Moreover, it must be noted that the authors of both are experts in nursing, not in disease classification or treatments. If you want to contribute links to academic articles, they should expressly mention that "disease X" is incurable. — kashmīrī  TALK  19:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, this is possibly not a classification at all. This is just a terminology, and yes, it seems to be more frequently used in nursing. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To give more time for the ongoing discussion.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥</b><b style="color:red"> ♦</b><b style="color:black"> ♣</b><b style="color:black"> ♠</b> 03:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. A more complete list could be made of "incurable" diseases that have been cured. BD2412  T 14:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * a list of "incurable" diseases that have been cured. Yes, I think that could be an interesting and legitimate list. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete With the exception of some infectious diseases, and a small number of medical conditions that can be corrected by surgical means, the vast majority of medical conditions are essentially incurable. They can often be treated, and this is why we have an ever growing list of pharmaceutical drugs that are discovered to treat various conditions.  This makes it rather non-notable that a disease is incurable.  The general role of a physician is to reduce suffering and improve a patient's ability to engage in acts of daily living.  If this can be done by curing the cause of an ailment, all the better, but "curing" the patient is not actually a physician's primary goal.  One difficulty with medical articles is that the general Wikipedia guidelines are not very useful (this is why we have MEDRS, for example).  In this case, basic medical practice is more useful than any Wikipedia guideline, and there is very little notable about the fact that a disease cannot be cured.  More relevant statuses might be whether it is likely to be terminal, whether there are available treatments, whether the patient will be capable of basic ADLs with or without treatment, etc. Hyperion35 (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the vast majority of medical conditions are essentially incurable. Not sure if this is majority, but definitely a lot. But I do not see how this is an argument for deletion. Terminal conditions - yes, that would also make sense. My very best wishes (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My point is that a disease being "incurable" is not really notable. Many "incurable" diseases can be treated to the point that they are more or less "cured" so long as treatment continues.  Even then, it depends on the patient, for example with epilepsy some patients may take anticonvulsant medication and never have another seizure, others may require surgical intervention, and some will eventually die either directly (status ep, SUDEP) or indirectly (drowning, falls) from the condition.  Many psychiatric conditions can be treated with medication and the patients can have otherwise normal lives, other patients may see symptom reduction but still experience some disability, others may stop taking their medications due to anosognosia.  Many endocrine conditions are simply a matter of hormone replacement therapy (insulin, glutocorticoids, etc) to make up for an insufficiency, by replacing the function of an organ with a daily pill or injection, the patient's blood levels return to normal, are they "cured"?  The very concept of "cure" is somewhat irrelevant, and usually you only see it in infectious disease (occasionally), and in so-called "alternative medicine". Hyperion35 (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I actually agree. I can not say how notable it might be beyond the fact it appears in many references, etc. This is the reason I initially voted "delete". But my point is simply this: if the term (and this is really just a term, not a classification) was used in multiple WP:MEDRS sources (like ), there is nothing wrong with creating such list. This is just a reference work. The only valid argument here is this: defining specific items of the list may be difficult. My very best wishes (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that was precisely the key reason of my nomination: that the definition of cure is (unavoidably) so imprecise that the article runs afoul of WP:LISTCRIT. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  16:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is something poorly defined, just as many other things in medicine, humanities, etc. This is not anything "unambiguous" or "objective", I agree. But I would rather suggest to rename to List of terminal illnesses. Indeed, this term term appears in dictionaries as terminal illness -, which a much better established terminology. If health departments of governments have such lists (in relation to treatments and care towards the end of patient's life), I do not see a compelling reason why we can not have such list. My very best wishes (talk) 17:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait what? Most of these conditions are not terminal illnesses.  Definitions in medicine are very important, and they are sometimes very different from how they are used in everyday English, and ambiguity is to be avoided at all costs.  Terminal illnesses are more than just incurable conditions.  Many incurable conditions will continue throughout the patient's life, but they are not terminal and unlikely to result in death.  I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to pay close attention to definitions in medicine and recognize that there is a great body of knowledge required to interpret them.  I am perfectly capable of reading and writing medical regulations, for example, but as a non-clinician I regularly consult with our CMO's office for clarification on clinical terminology.
 * So there are two issues that collide here, one is that medicine is complicated and so it is difficult to make simple and unambiguous statements. The other issue is that in medicine precision is essential and ambiguity is to be avoided, it can even be dangerous.  This creates all sorts of problems when writing an encyclopedia that is accessible to the average non-expert.  Overly broad presentations of information can be ambiguous and incorrect to the point that it can be worse than not presenting that information at all. Hyperion35 (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with Hyperion. It's not only that terminal is something entirely different than incurable, but illness alone is not the same as disease. A terminal illness is something wholly, entirely, fundamentally different than an incurable disease.
 * As you conflate two completely different terms, it feels that you are not very familiar with medical terminology and so I suggest we end our discussion here. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  19:25, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Australian list you linked only gives examples of medical conditions where patients may require care at the advanced (terminal) stage of the disease. This does not mean that they are terminal conditions; only, that these conditions may have a terminal stage that necesitates specialised end-of-life care. Hope it clarifies. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  19:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Admittedly, I am not an expert in medical terminology. According to our page terminal illness, Terminal illness or end-stage disease is a disease that cannot be cured or adequately treated and is reasonably expected to result in the death of the patient. Yes, that is what I thought, an end-stage disease that can not be cured. My very best wishes (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That article is quite bad, and the definition given in the lead section is unsourced. The Talk contains a fairly good definition by the DWP (UK): Also, this study discusses the various definition found in the literature.
 * For the avoidance of doubt, such diseases as cold sores and dandruff are incurable but, hope you agree, they can hardly be called terminal conditions. — kashmīrī  <sup style="font-family:Candara; color:#80F;">TALK  23:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely. I thought that the current list would have to be significantly changed if renamed. This is not the same. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.