Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Long face syndrome


 * 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 keep. J04n(talk page) 14:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Long face syndrome

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article had four sources. One was spamming a predatory open access journal, two were self-published pages on dentists' websites, the final one is no longer available and would not in and of itself establish notability anyway. This looks like a WP:NEO. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. —Syrenka V (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! Baby miss  fortune 15:09, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * weak keep GScholar shows a reasonable set of hits about this which appear to be in the principal American orthodontics journal, back in the 1970s at least; however, the second GBooks hit begins, "Actually, the very description of long-face syndrome is controversial, commonly involving increased anterior total and lower face height across ages, with vertical maxillary excess in adults." It appears to be a real thing, but it's unclear to me whether anything the article says represents the state-of-the-art. Mangoe (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It's not a good article; it's certainly not WP:NEO, and it's a shame the NOM hadn't taken the trouble to spend a few minutes on Google. (Do please read WP:BEFORE). There are serious sources going back to 1976 which clearly refer to it as a genuine syndrome, so I believe it meets WP:N. See here and also this literature review. I will add them have added them to the article, and have reworded its contents. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment on sourcing: Unfortunately I have had to remove the following literature-review reference from the article; its publisher, MedCrave, is predatory:
 * See the following for information on the predatory character of MedCrave:
 * Beall's List (archived 2017-10-16)
 * TheScientist (archived 2017-06-10)
 * Snopes (archived 2017-12-17)
 * The nominator was likewise correct in removing the following source (present shortly before nomination) from the article on the ground that its publisher, Jaypee Journals, is predatory:
 * The predatory character of Jaypee Journals can be confirmed from Beall's List (above). Neither of these references should be added back to the article.
 * Despite the above, enough sourcing is available to to justify a keep. The other four journal sources currently cited in the article are all legitimate. I was able to fix the URL link for Carano et al 2005; it was a matter of replacing codes of the form "%nn" with the characters they stand for (brackets, parentheses, colon, semicolon). I will try to add more sources; the above is just cleanup before starting work on expanding the article.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Despite the above, enough sourcing is available to to justify a keep. The other four journal sources currently cited in the article are all legitimate. I was able to fix the URL link for Carano et al 2005; it was a matter of replacing codes of the form "%nn" with the characters they stand for (brackets, parentheses, colon, semicolon). I will try to add more sources; the above is just cleanup before starting work on expanding the article.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 03:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:Snowball. No compliance with WP:Before.  I've added references and text.  WP:Not paper.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 13:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Your argument about the publisher ignores both who the authors are and the substance of their paper. Essentially, it is an Argument ad hominem and only partially relevant.  I put it back.  In any event, it is merely corroborative of the nine  thirteen  seventeen nineteen other sources that are now in the article.  This argument is about WP:GNG and WP:Notability, not about the validity of the medical/dental terminology.  Deleting one source out of 18 20 will not refloat this Titanic.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 17:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per 7+6.♦ Dr. Blofeld  17:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Snowball Keep. If this isn't a WP:SNOWBALL keep, it's at least close; I agree with others above that the nominator's WP:BEFORE was deficient. I continue to agree with the nominator about unacceptability of anything published by predatory publishers as sources in a medical article—see the guideline WP:MEDRS, which has a section specifically about predatory publishers—but there are enough good secondary sources by mainstream publishers (Springer, LWW, Elsevier, etc.) that removal of all sources from predatory publishers would, if anything, merely further reinforce the impression of a well-sourced article on a notable topic.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 23:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This is indeed looking more and more like a WP:SNOWBALL keep. I agree with that there are too many good sources there for deletion to appear as a realistic possibility again, even after applying the standards of WP:MEDRS with full rigor. I suggest that the nominator withdraw the nomination, and instead pursue improvement of the article through normal editing and talk-page discussion.
 * —Syrenka V (talk) 06:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Snow Keep per common sense, multiple reliable sources, snow, Christmas, and such. Nice work, 7&amp;6=thirteen. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2017 (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.