Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepalepsy


 * 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   speedy delete. Confirmed hoax. Not verifiable. Mgm|(talk) 01:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nepalepsy

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

Suspected hoax; zero hits on Google Scholar or PubMed. Only Wikipedia clones on Google. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:HOAX Mayalld (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I too can find nothing but web mirrors on this, and zero results at Pubmed is as close to a conclusive negative result as you can get for a medical term. Regardless of whether it is a hoax or not, it is unverified and appears unverifiable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The first edit on this page was User:Bzoo's only edit, so it could be vandalism (the erectile dysfunction comment is suspicious), or perhaps an attempt at writing an article on epilepsy? Baileypalblue (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Looks like a clear hoax to me; there's nothing on Medline so the only other options are a misspelling or neologism. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to Myoclonus. Very much fits the description of myoclonus. Tatterfly (talk) 20:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How can you merge something without references? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And what information would you want to merge? Caused by playing video games, symptoms include erectile dysfunction?  I think the Myoclonus article is doing just fine on its own.  Baileypalblue (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hoax. No redeeming features, not a candidate for merge. JFW | T@lk  21:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - and oppose merge. There is no evidence that this term is being used to describe Myoclonus.  In fact there is no evidence for this term at all. -- Whpq (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. "[...] said patient lost the will to fornicate. Also, said patient developped a severe case of Yellow Fever which was detremental to his self-esteem" clinches it for me. Anyone see a chance of snow for tonight? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Another example of how Wikipedia has changed over the years. Back in 2006, unsourced nonsense like this would have been speedily caught.  I think the only reason this lasted for more than two years is because nobody looked at it until recently.  Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, from the article history it looks like at least three editors looked at the article and gave it a pass; but hey, it's a big encyclopedia and not everybody is in a position to bring down deletion on articles that deserve it. Baileypalblue (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's very common for editors doing routine maintenance to do just that maintenance task and not actually examine the article generally. It would be a good idea encouraging them to actually think about the article, but on the other hand many beginners just want to fix details, and it is a reasonable way to start. DGG (talk) 00:49, 15 January 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.