Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plum 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 delete. Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Plum syndrome

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This doesn't seem to be an accepted term for any medical condition. Pepper Beast   (talk)  22:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  22:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
 *  Keep Delete It does exist. The reference in the wiki page is very hard to access--I was unable to, but I did find another report of the same case: — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC) My keep vote was based on a misunderstanding of notability criteria. I now revised my vote to delete. amended 16:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Existing, as defined above, it's not what we're looking for here. Notability is what we are looking for and if the only source is a 1976 paper, I think it is not notable. That it is a rare syndrome would not mean that writing about it would also be so rare.  CT55555 (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not an argument for deletion for a disease/syndrome. See WP:HEA. Diseases that have been officially diagnosed in one or more humans, animals, or plants are notable. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:18, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:HEA is part of Notability (natural sciences), which is very clearly marked as a failed proposal. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not noticing that. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 16:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep About two pages of journal articles in GScholar to show it exists. Oaktree b (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Only at most six of those results are about the article subject. The others are mostly about fruit or air power. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In fact, just three of them seem to be of any real relevance-- Plum's original paper, and a couple of cites by his colleague Mette Warburg.  Pepper Beast    (talk)  11:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Sourcing limitations cause me to question notability and reliability of said sources. NiklausGerard (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2022 (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.