Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ocular citrosis


 * 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 by Anthony Bradbury per G3. (non-admin closure) John F. Lewis (talk) 06:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ocular citrosis

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I think this article is a 'joke'. No disease by this name has ever existed. It's true that putting acid in your eye can blind you but that's true of most things and we don't have a disease name for every object small enough to poke someone in the eye with. Acid injuries to the eyes come under 'ocular burns' or 'chemical eye injury' Aspheric (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. This smells rather like a hoax, although the article's creator appears to have a history of constructive edits.  Googling ("ocular citrosis") yields only pages with text identical to material in this article.  The article asserts that the malady was studied by one Alfred T. Murrough at the Sanford-Burnham Institute; but Googling ("murrough" "sanford burnham") again yielded only material apparently taken from this article.  Googling ("alfred t murrough") and ("alfred murrough") likewise produced no useful results: the latter, in fact, produced almost nothing but blogs containing misspellings of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.  I'm inclined to recommend db-hoax, but since the creator's apparently done useful work (on carnivorous plants), I'll extend him/her the benefit of the doubt.  Nevertheless, in the absence of sources, delete.  Ammodramus (talk) 23:16, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I found mentions of the term ocular citrosis in the following references:,  , , and  . In them, citrosis seems to be used a generic term for acid burn. These references, if legit, would indicate verifiability of the term, but are not enough for notability, If not (e.g., rephrasings of the Wikipedia article), then this article is likely a hoax. The article was created on 1 April 2010. Mark viking (talk) 23:34, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've repaired User:Mark viking's links: the cite-web template doesn't work in this situation. Ammodramus (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to know--thanks for the correction! Mark viking (talk) 04:22, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. In view of these links, I'm less inclined to call this a hoax.  I suspect that the creator used the Health Status page (Mark Viking's first link) as a source, and threw in a certain amount of OR&mdash;the references to the condition as an "infection" suggest a weak background in medical terminology.
 * I've just searched JSTOR for (ocular citrosis) and got zero results. Using JSTOR's "Advanced search" feature, I checked for (murrough) from 1990-1993, which should have covered the purported 1991 study; I found no results that related to ocular medicine.  Using JSTOR's "Citation locator" with "murrough" as the author produced three results, none connected to ocular medicine.
 * I'm standing by my "Delete" !vote. There seems to be an absence of in-depth coverage, and the article appears to contain some highly dubious material.  Ammodramus (talk) 02:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems strange that acid burns would be discussed in the same context as cataract when they are very different disorders. On it's own, ocular citrosis was unlikely to attract much attention so a month after it was created, a link and description was inserted in to the article on cataract . It is possible that from there a number of blogs simply cut and pasted wikipedia's entry, giving the hoax a limited spread. It seems everyone's instincts are right but I'd still give the joker an 'A' for effort and innovationAspheric (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment Imo the reference to Homer gives this away as a hoax.TheLongTone (talk) 23:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete a hoax, and an obvious one. A trout slap to the whole community for letting this sit around for 3 years. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete as obvious hoax (as noted above). Pubmed search yields nothing at all for "citrosis", and the links found above are almost certainly derivatives of the same hoax (perhaps arising from our too-long-standing article).  The article is a mashup of quasi-medical ideas.  -- Scray (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * SNOWBALL delete.. Hoax or not, it lacks any referencess. - Altenmann >t 20:33, 7 January 2013 (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.