Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongoloid cuticle


 * 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   move to Inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe. Suppressing redirect during move. No opinion on the specific title, and further name changes can be discussed elsewhere Fritzpoll (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Mongoloid cuticle

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is not a phrase I can find in any sources. The sources given are all in Chinese and according to the talk page would fail our WP:RS criteria. It may be a hoax, it certainly seems to fail our notability guidelines and verifiability policy. Dougweller (talk) 07:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sources (translated:     ) are variously blogs or discussion boards and do not meet the standard required of WP:SOURCES. This is the only related English language source I could locate. Seemingly no scientific or medical references in any language. WWGB (talk) 07:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Would we be able to consider stubbify as an option, or find if people are able to obtain "reliable sources"? I am absolutely unable to find English sources, perhaps as this would be relatively unheard of outside of China, I am able to find Chinese sources, however it is definitely not a hoax and exists. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * QUOTE: "It may be a hoax" - such a harsh statement, without any justification. I could invite you to my house and show you my toes and my family's toes, and then take you to a school and show you every single Chinese student's toes, but I'm pretty sure you would decline. I have no issues with you saying that it is "poorly referenced", however I do not accept the fact that your nom is based on the assumption that it is a hoax. From your other argument, how does it fail to meet notability? Is it not as significant as Mongolian spot or Epicanthal fold? As I have said on the talk page, please try not to demolish the house before it is even built. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Mongolian spot is an accepted medical fact. Epicanthal fold is an accepted medical fact. Mongoloid cuticle appears not to be. WWGB (talk) 10:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This does not mean that it is a hoax. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 12:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, from above, Source 2 is not a discussion blog. Regarding Source 1, the text content has been changed from when I last accessed it (it now is a page on human evolutionary theory), and so it can be removed from the article. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 10:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

1. http://koudai.360.cn/u/19377718/article_143411183.html?s=y - This is an article, non-blog, non-forum. Quote: 导游会问你的左脚的小脚指甲有无分岔？据说有分岔的人，都是从山西迁徙出去的. 汉人小脚拇指的指甲盖，通常分裂为两半. 不过两半不成比例， Rough translation by Google Translate: Ask your guides left bifurcation any small toenail? Bifurcation is said to have people who are migrating away from the Shanxi Province. Han Chinese bound feet thumb nail covers, are usually split into two halves. But in two out of proportion Important section noted in bold.
 * If I am able to find more reliable sources, would you consider keeping it, while removing unsupported claims? I have found two reliable articles so far:

2. http://www.360doc.com/content/090317/12/116177_2833073.html - This is also an article, non-blog, non-forum. Quote: 民族大融合后的汉人的脚指头，小拇指的指甲盖，通常分裂为两半. 不过两半不成比例，一半大得多，一半很少，不注意是很难发现的,而且男左女右. 异民族的脚趾的小拇指头，则是完整光滑的一块. Google Translate: After the national integration of the Chinese脚指头,小拇指cover the nail, usually split into two halves. However, out of proportion in two, half is much greater, half small, pay no attention to it is very difficult to find, and男左女右. Toes of different ethnic groups小拇指first, it is a smooth complete. See bold. Regards, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * is an article, non-forum. It claims that the trait shows that one is most likely, but not absolutely certain, to be Han Chinese. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 02:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * is an article, non-forum, about a myth relating to the trait. Claims that it comes from Shandong, Henan, Jiangsu, Anhui and Hubei. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 02:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * is an article, non-forum, relates the trait to a legend about Shennong Emperor. Not sure if credible. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 02:31, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * non-forum article, says the same. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 02:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Something that exists in the areas the article claims it does should certainly have non-Chinese sources describing it, and I am very surprised that it has no English-language sources if there is medical literature in any other language. And as you claim the epicanthic fold and the Mongolian spot are distinguishing features of the alleged 'Mongoloid race', and yet they clearly are not as they are found in people's that are not classified as Mongolian, I'm even more dubious about where you are getting your information. I don't see how stubbifying it helps except of course my points about the epicanthic fold and Mongoloid spot no longer apply. Let's let the process unfold, people have 7 days to make their comments. Start by finding acceptable sources for the phrase 'Mongoloid cuticle'. Dougweller (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have stubbified the article, and it will remain a stub until I can find acceptable sources for the removed sections. Please see if the current revision is acceptable or not. Thanks, --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't necessarily have to be called that. What it is called is not the main issue here. The main issue is whether it exists or not, and how one can prove its existence, through reliable sources. We can figure out the name dispute afterwards, that is the minor, insignificant issue. Right now, I shall find sources to prove its existence. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I hope you are not saying that you wish to demolish the entire article just because of its name, are you? "Mongoloid cuticle" is probably not the official name in English, that is just a direct translation from the Chinese term "蒙古人种指甲", we can decide what to call it afterwards. My priority is the article itself, not what it should be called. Within seven days I can prove its existence using acceptable sources, however I cannot guarantee the name. It's not that I am desperate or anything, it is just that I am able to prove what it is and leave it to remain as a stubbified article. I just require time. --   李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * QUOTE: "And as you claim the epicanthic fold and the Mongolian spot are distinguishing features of the alleged 'Mongoloid race', and yet they clearly are not as they are found in people's that are not classified as Mongolian, I'm even more dubious about where you are getting your information." I hope you shall be kind enough to eat your own words. Original line from article: "The Mongoloid cuticle is one of a few distinguishing features of the Mongoloid race." Note that I did not say that they must be mongoloid, as you have interpreted it. These traits are commonly found in Mongoloids, that does not equate to "therefore all XYZ must be Mongoloids". Quote from Mongolian spot article: "Mongolian spots are most prevalent among Mongols, Turks, and other Asian groups, such as the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans. Nearly all East Asian infants are born with one or more Mongolian spots. It is also common if only one of the parents is East Asian...The incidence among caucasians from Europe is between 1-10%." It does not contradict with my statement; it is common in East Asians and uncommon in Europeans. I never said that it did not occur in Europeans, I never used the exact words. Distinguishing features include those that are common in one place but not another. Refer to black corn and yellow corn; both occur everywhere, but in different proportions. Note that in Mongoloid race, Native Americans are classified as "Mongoloid". Quote from Mongolian spot article: "A Mongolian spot (also called a mongolian fleck, mongolian blue spot or congenital dermal melanocytosis) is a benign flat congenital birthmark with wavy borders and irregular shape, most common among East Asians and Turks, and named after Mongolians. It is also extremely prevalent among East Africans, Polynesians, and Native Americans." Am I incorrect? Similarly, Quote from Epicanthal fold: "The epicanthic fold occurs commonly in people of Central Asian, East Asian and Southeast Asian descent as a result of adaptive significance." The word "common" is used, not "exclusively", which also does not contradict to what I have said. You have also said QUOTE: "distinguishing features of the alleged 'Mongoloid race'" Why do you use quotes? Why do you use "alleged"? Have a look at Mongoloid race, a concept in which I did not invent. Your word structures appear as if I said I saw a UFO. Right now I don't take any offense at that, but from now on, please watch how you use your words. QUOTE: "Something that exists in the areas the article claims it does should certainly have non-Chinese sources describing it" - a rather eurocentric statement, in which Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia accepts sources from all languages, as long as they can be proved to be reliable. Why are there no detailed English accounts for Wei Guanzhi? or Heshen? or Zhang Hongjing? --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 11:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I use alleged because a lot of scientists don't see any scientific basis for these racial classifications. Since I don't believe these races exist, I use quotation marks, 'alleged', etc. Leaving that aside for the moment, the presence of the epicanthic fold is no guarantee the person belongs to the 'Mongoloid race', ditto the Mongolian spot. Thus they are not distinguishing features.


 * We can't decide what to call the article, we need to use the term used in the scientific literature. Any language scientific literature, but I still would expect more than Chinese sources can be found if this is a scientifically shown feature. Dougweller (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The only English article (i.e. non-forum) that I have found so far that mentions the trait, after two hours of Googling, is which doesn't really seem to be a good source. I'll try for another three hours today before I nod off and sleep. --   李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 13:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. I've tried searching various combinations of Mongoloid, Asian, Chinese, toenail, and "fifth phalanx" and haven't been able to turn up any mention of this. Han Chinese people live in many places other than China, and I would expect this to be discussed somewhere in Western medical literature; but it doesn't seem to be. Deor (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The only results from searching "chinese pinky toenail" are forums, which are not valid sources. I can get better articles in Chinese, but apparently it is not acceptable, something that I don't entirely understand. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 13:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Sources are from blogs and forums, so if the creator does not provide reliable sources (news, academic sources), there is no reason to keep the article.--Caspian blue 14:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * is not a blog or a forum. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 02:02, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment My guess is that this is not so much a medical reality as a popular idea/old wives tale (like the idea that half-Asians are all more attractive than the sum of their parts&mdash;no scientific basis whatsoever, but don't think it's not a common national myth). It could still be worth mentioning, though, as a popular idea, rather than a medical condition.  Perhaps by looking for "reliable medical sources" we are barking up the wrong tree, and it would be better to change the focus of the article entirely? r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 14:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggests this article to be merged into Han chinese, this is a very popluar myth occur among the Chinese internet community, specifically within the satellite forums of Han clothing (Hanwang). It is said that during the Ming dynasty, a group a Shanxiese were forced to cut their nail on their little toe and moved to Henan, there are many versions of the story. Both my brother and I have this, and there is a wide popular belief that whoever having this toes and the "phoniex eye" (slant eye) are the so called real Han chinese descendant. I doubt this have any scientific prove, I had seen southern Han and non-Han Indonesian/etc nor who look not like Mongoloid at all (100%) but having such toenail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.7.181 (talk)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  15:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to Inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe. See this article in Dermatologic Surgery.  With many thanks to WikiProject Medicine's fabulous dermatology task force.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Well done! That's a start -- I've done another search, and that's all I can find. The article may give clues as to other sources. We certainly can't keep the current title as things stand, even if in the end we find we can keep the article. Dougweller (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * CommentThe abstract of the cited article does not state this is unique to Chinese. The blurry photo illustrating the Wikipedia article could be of a split toenail as easily as some exotic "Mongoloid cuticle." This does not satisfy verifiability or notability yet. I could not find anything in Google Book search related to "Accessory nail of the fifth toe" There should be more than one source, which the viewable portion does not show to be clearly about the claimed trait, to qualify for a Wikipedia article. Sources should link it to the population it is claimed to be especially common in. Nail bifurcation is also discussed at "A Text Atlas of Nail Disorders." as occurring in big toes fingers and thumbs. This has also been called "supernumerary nail" in a dermatology book from the 1870's pages 82-83, and in "On diseases of the skin" (1857) page 610. The congenital bifurcation of the underlying phalanx is mentioned as a likely cause of bifurcation of a toenail in Manual of nail diseases and surgery"(1997) page 6. None of these works relates the condition particularly to Asians. Reliable sources are needed to verify the condition has some special relation to some group of Asians. Edison (talk) 22:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: "Unique" is not used, but "common" is. Since this is the only firm source we have at the moment, we can base the article on a trait that is common in population XYZ. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 00:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is not the same trait as . In the link given, the toe is split into two equal parts. What the trait in the article is about is a tiny fragment of toenail growing vertically out of the outer corner of the toe ("outer" refers to "away from the body", on either the left or right side, depending on the foot). The trait was never a bifurcation, as in, but rather a partial separation of an unequal amount, an accessory nail found to the side of the larger nail, which does not have any purpose. Bifurcation would be an entirely different idea. It also has no relation to , an entirely different concept, as the trait in the article is inherited and not the result of some form of injury. I have found many websites that have a copy of the "Inherited Accessory Nail of the Fifth Toe" report by Ching-Chi Chi, MD, and Shu-Hui Wang, MD, and nothing else so far in relation to medical reports. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 02:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Partial rewrite complete, please provide feedback, thanks. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 03:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Move to "Inherited accessory nail". I found that paper as well. I have added it to the article references. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  19:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks for finding the Dermatologic Surgery article.  I don't support a move at this time.  --Boston (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - As per my initial comment at WT:DERM, what is being described in this article sound to me like "Inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe." However, I have no source for the term "Mongoloid cuticle" and cannot verify whether it is synonymous with the term "Inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe."  The  reference should be used to support an Inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe article but not to support the term "Mongoloid cuticle."  At this time, I support keeping an Inherited accessory nail of the fifth toe article, but, given the lack of reliable source for the term "Mongoloid cuticle," would not support an article or redirect for Mongoloid cuticle. ---kilbad (talk) 11:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What is intended to be described in the article is exactly the same to that described in the paper by Chi, CC and Wang SH. "Mongoloid Culticle" is most probably an incorrect term, not the most correct name in English. The article should be renamed entirely. --  李博杰    | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 12:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. Sounds like a good plan to me. ---kilbad (talk) 15:36, 19 April 2009 (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.