Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies


 * 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. Secret account 19:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A random list of conditions where the exact cause is still elusive. It is incomplete, and makes a rather odd distinction between ICD-10 recognised and non-recognised entities. I think this list is potentially endless and has been superseded by Category:Ailments of unknown etiology. Delete please. JFW | T@lk  22:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * comment any relationship to Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology Articles for deletion/Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology? How many of these articles, lists do we have? Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Pete, the answer to your question is "way the heck too many!" (You can expect Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology to reappear here before long if the author doesn't deal with the original research problems soon.)   WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * delete without sources, strict criteria for inclusion, and a clearer rationale for this list, it seems to be an indiscriminate list tinged with WP:OR flavourings. Wake me up if someone turns this into a state better than List of autoimmune diseases before this AfD closes. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Any list of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies that is anywhere near comprehensive would have many, many thousands of entries. I don't see how such a list can be managed here. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a crystal ball, so we should worry about that when the list gets to be in the thousands, it has about a dozen now. With more research I could probably double it. List of Popes and presidents will be in the thousands too ... eventually. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What use, in an encyclopedia, is a list that doesn't contain, or even aim to contain, so much as one percent of the items currently known to belong in the list category? Pete.Hurd (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The difference is the list is sourced, anyone can add a category tag to an article, and it can be 100% inaccurate. Lists and categories are not mutually exclusive. You wouldn't delete a list of popes because not all the popes in a category are in that list yet. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for breaking into the middle of this discussion, but I actually think that having the sources included in the list makes the list more likely to provide inaccurate or outdated information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If there were 5000 popes, and The list of popes listed a half dozen, then I'd nominate it for deletion. Why? Because it's not "The list of popes" it's merely "An arbitrary smattering of a handful of Popes" and of no real value to an encyclopedia because it does not in any way accurately represent the topic it nominally represents, it would not serve honestly as a reference source of information because it does not attempt to cover the topic in an encyclopedic manner. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * An incomplete list is better than no list, so long as its marked as incomplete. An incomplete article can be improved. If every incomplete list was deleted we wouldn't have this reference work called Wikipedia, its just plain silly to delete something that can be fixed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you know of a gazillion others, God bless you and your medical insight. The Merck Manual lists just two, and of all the articles in Wikipedia less than a dozen others turned up. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * is there a single member of List of ICD-9 codes 290-319: Mental disorders or Category:Mental illness diagnosis by DSM and ICD that has a known etiology? I doubt it. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Can it be fixed? Do medical encyclopedias dichotomously classify etiologies as either "known" or "unknown"?  I rather suspect they view knowledge of etiology as being more subtle, things are better understood or poorly understood, not known vs. unknown.  Do medical encyclopedias have lists of all diseases of officially unknown etiology?  or is this the sort of pseudo-medical article that exists in wikipedia alone, because the medical articles are written by a completely different class of people (non-experts) than write articles in medical encyclopedias (experts)? Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't a medical encyclopedia, I don't get your argument. And to answer your question, yes they do. Two came from the Merck Manual on the chapter on just that topic. Please try to read the entire article, and actually use the references. Gut reactions are good, and fun. Careful research is better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I can help you understand this argument. Pete is trying to give you a chance to establish that this list is encyclopedic. Basically, if a normal encyclopedia has such a list, then Wikipedia should, too. Establishing the encyclopedic nature of the list would be a strong argument in favor of keeping it. However, normal encyclopedias don't have a list like this. So he asks, does a specifically medical encyclopedia have such a list? He's trying to give you another opportunity here. However, the answer appears to be no. Yes, the Merck Manual has three pages online that cover Multiple chemical sensitivity and Chronic fatigue syndrome, but (1) no other diseases are in this section, despite the fact that it covers hundreds of diseases for which no cause is known, and (2) no list.  Therefore we conclude that lists like this are not normally included in encyclopedias. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete It seems to be original research.  Lady   Galaxy  22:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep of course. Ironically enough, it is original research to call an article "original research" without attempting to do some actual research on the Internet. I don't expect everyone to be an expert on medicine, but anyone can use Google to do a search. If the article needs references, there is a tag for that. It is also original research to guess that the number of diseases and syndromes of unknown etiology is endless, its not. There is a finite number of diseases and syndromes, and even fewer of unknown etiology. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Author of the article. I have tried to explain that the list is potentially endless, and better served with a category. JFW | T@lk  23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article provides sources to support the identifications, all of which satisfies the notability standard. What seems to appear to the unrefined palate as "WP:OR flavourings" is actually a delicate blend of lightly-roasted nutmeg and coriander, with just a hint of fennel, all of unknown etiology. As to the suggestion that a category could replace this article, lists and categories are intended to complement each other, and the grouping and sources provided here would be impossible in a category. As stated at WP:LIST, "Lists and categories are synergistic". Alansohn (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, but it is possible to cite sources for literally thousands of other medical conditions not presently included. Could you explain why a list is needed in addition to a category? JFW | T@lk  23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete don't see how unknown causes ties these together in a useful way. JJL (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A relevant group of items, with adequate sourcing for the purpose. Clearer than a category. DGG (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The sources should be in the articles themselves, which can then be included in a category. I don't think this is "clearer" at all. For many conditions, several causes are proposed. To try to address these possible causes in the context of a list is almost completely impossible. JFW | T@lk  23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Has sources. Annotated lists are different from categs. But it needs a proper intro sentence to link to main concepts. --mervyn (talk) 08:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See my response to DGG and Alansohn. JFW | T@lk  23:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. I have been thinking about this for several days, and I have come down firmly on the side of deletion.  Here are my reasons:
 * First of all, because it's unimportant. I rate this as contributing as much useful content to an encyclopedia as a "List of state legislators some people are interested in" would.  It does not meet any of the three required purposes named in the list policy, which are to provide organized information, to help with navigation, or to assist with development of the encyclopedia.  It does not usefully organize information, it is not useful for navigation, and it is not used to improve the listed articles.
 * Second, because it's only known function is to provide a home for a favorite subject of Richard Arthur Norton. This list was basically written by a single editor, which strongly suggests that the Wikipedia community does not need it.  The very nature of the list gives me concerns about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH violations.
 * Third, because declaring that a condition has either a "known" and "unknown" etiology does not appropriately reflect the complexities of cause. To give one trivial example, is the cause of a simple cellulitis a bacteria, or is it skinning your knee when you fell down, or is it being distracted when you needed to be watching where you put your feet?  (Do you really think that we should list ADHD as a cause of skinned knees?)
 * Fourth, because whether a cause is known or unknown can be disputed not just by disease but by individual cases. For example, some cases of chronic lymphocytic leukemia have known causes, and some cases of the same disease do not.
 * Fifth, because it contains no criteria for inclusion on the list, which means that it's going to be a POV magnet.
 * Sixth, because it makes no provision for handling legitimate (and illegitimate) scientific disputes about status.
 * Seventh, because the topic of the list does not meet the basic notability guideline. Has anyone ever seen an independent media source talk about diseases with unknown causes in general?  Specific diseases with unknown or disputed causes turn up all the time, but the general topic never comes up.
 * Eighth, because the long-standing failure to develop the list has resulted in it being an indiscriminate collection of links, in violation of the WP:NOT policies. Richard Arthur Norton has had two years to address these issues and has not managed to do so.  It is my opinion that he has not done so because the goals cannot be reasonably achieved.  I think any such efforts are doomed, no matter how enthusiastic or willing its supporter may be.
 * Finally, because the list contributes no useful information to any average reader. Average readers -- the official audience according to WP policy -- are not looking for "stuff that could use some etiology-related research."  Average readers are normally looking for information about specific diseases.  The very little information on this page should be divided up onto the pages of the actual conditions.
 * Basically, I think that this is a useless partial collection of the names of a few diseases. If this list had been both substantially better developed (in ways that address the above-named deficiencies) and we could demonstrate that it addressed an actual average-reader need, I would support it, but my opinion is that this list is a waste of disk space.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete - for all of above reasons (no inclusion/exclusion criteria) and no degree of "unknown" specified - hence pityriasis rosea is included in the list which is generally believed to be related to a viral infection (the unknown bit is that not confirmed nor identified which virus), likewise sarcoidosis on the list is known to be an immunological reaction (what is unknown is what the initial trigger is & what the precise immune response is and how that then results in the clinical picture observed) - I am quite certain that sarcoid is not an obvious bacterial infection needing antibiotics, or a trauma needing surgery/bandages/just-rest, whereas medicine is clear that is is immunological and treats as such successfully with steroids & Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. At best a rename to List of syndromes and diseases with uncertain etiologies or List of syndromes and diseases with uncertain pathophysiology. David Ruben Talk 18:55, 27 January 2008 (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.