Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical model of autism (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. Ylevental was indef blocked as a sock.  Sandstein  12:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Advocacy for autism treatment
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Mainly original research -- adding more information now. Anomalapropos (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * This page was nominated for deletion because of OR once before, which is why I am opening it again for the same reason. I mentioned I was considering it on the Talk page, and no replies came. The person who nominated it last time noted that they were able to find references to the "medical model of autism" in Google Books and then withdrew their nomination. However, I think perhaps they were missing some context.
 * Most reliable sources that use the phrase "medical model of autism" are referring to the "medical model of disability", but in reference to autism. You won't find an RS about an accepted definition for a "medical model of autism," at least not the way it's described here. The medical perspective or "medical model" of autism is the mainstream perspective of autism. Practically everything, aside from the introductory paragraph (which is the OR part) already exists in other articles, including pro-cure perspectives, etc. If anything, any new information from this page could be merged into those existing articles: Autism, Autism spectrum, Autism rights movement, Autism therapies, etc. Anomalapropos (talk) 04:39, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm not sure whether the article should be deleted or not, but I found a peer reviewed article titled "A medical model of autism: etiology, pathology and treatment." and added it Ylevental (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Does that article substantiate everything else on this page though? (Is it even an RS for the paragraph it's citing? I can't read it.) Almost none of the sources for the content refer to a medical model of autism; the sources refer to pro-cure rhetoric, and this article applies the term "medical model" to those views (I think that's the definition of OR). That's why I'm saying this is a redundant page. Pro-cure rhetoric is already discussed on the main autism pages. Anomalapropos (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment This article presents the pro-cure position, and criticism thereof, in terms of the Medical model of disability. The article found by is applying the Medical model to autism. The difference may be subtle at first glance, but it is significant. We don't have articles on "The medical model of tonsilitis/headache/ankle sprain", so this one does seem rather redundant in that sense. However, an article detailing criticism of the cure paradigm might be useful - there could be a baby somewhere in this murky bathwater. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. I changed the article title to "Advocacy for autism treatment".  Hope that makes sense. Ylevental (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * It's still describing something that is already described in the other articles, though. Also, "advocacy of treatment" implies that opponents of pathologizing autism are anti-treatment. They might not use the word "treatment," but advocates are generally in favour of services and support. As the easiest example I can muster up, my local advocacy group posted [this article] about alternatives to ABA. So describing the position in this article as advocacy for treatment could be misleading. Other advocates' positions are already misrepresented as being entirely anti-therapy when making reference to the social model.
 * Re: criticism of the cure paradigm: There is, actually; it's part of the autism rights movement article. (Autism_rights_movement) Anomalapropos (talk) 16:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm not sure if the article should be kept (I want to let others decide), but if the article is to be kept, I picked the best possible title. I think "treatment" in this case means reducing the biological severity of autism, as opposed to providing societal accommodations. Ylevental (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge I was thinking about it for a while, the best solution would be to merge the article into Controversies_in_autism, to portray the controversy involving both sides of the medical/social disability debate. Ylevental (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to that. Sounds fair to me. Not the whole article, mind you; I think some of it is already reproduced in other articles, but the gist of what it's trying to get at is certainly noteworthy enough and the information belongs somewhere. --Anomalapropos (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Some of this information may be useful in that section. However, that section is already four paragraphs, and adding this entire article would violate WP:DUE. If some of the best information in this article were condensed and transferred, that might be advantageous compared to a flat deletion, but it just depends on what information you think is important. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete: This article is a major violation of NPOV. It should either discuss the autism treatment controversy (and be titled to reflect this) or not exist at all. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 20:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment That's not a deletion argument, at best it's an argument for a MOVE and major editing. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * POV forking is grounds for deletion. This article is a POV fork from controversies in autism. —Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Merge or delete? I'd encourage, if possible, users interested in merging the content elsewhere to start the ball rolling, so the closing admin isn't left feeling that non-neutral content is just being left unattended indefinitely.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Will do later today Ylevental (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  04:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1  ◊distænt write◊  04:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 23 June 2019 (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.