Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protein poisoning


 * 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 10:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Protein poisoning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article provides no evidence this is a "real" medical condition separate from Protein Toxicity Lunarfantom (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

In the talk page a few rather major issues have been raised. Namely: 1. Lack of medical citations or information. This article is being treated as a medical illness yet there is no research cited, nor input from medical authorities, no a proposed cure/treatment, proposed mechanisms, or anything else that one would expect to find in a medical article. The only information provided is anecdotal.

2. It's arguably propaganda. The wording strongly implies that rabbit meat is somehow inferior and risky to consume because of its comparably high protein content, even though several animals (such as elk and deer) have far more protein/fat and are not mentioned at all, nor is there any implication that the "cause" would be through a mainly carnivorous diet, rather then a supposed "over consumption of rabbit." Hence "rabbit starvation."

3. The article is arguably copyright infringement, as someone in the talk pages argues that their work is basically being quoted here without credits of any kind.

4. This supposed condition is basically just protein toxicity. The only research of any kind I could find actually analyzing the condition was found here. And the symptoms, mechanism, etc are literally the same. To quote:

"Despite thepaucity of clinical data, it is quite likely that the symptoms of rab-bit starvation result primarily from the finite ability of the liver toup-regulate  enzymes  necessary  for  urea  synthesis  in  the  face  ofincreasing  dietary  protein  intake.  Rudman  et  al  (43)  showed  thatthe mean maximal rate of urea synthesis (MRUS) in normal sub-jects is 65 mg N · h21· kg body wt20.75(range: 55–76 mg N · h21·kgbody  wt20.75)  and  that  protein  intakes  that  exceeded  the  MRUSresulted  in  hyperammonemia  and  hyperaminoacidemia.  UsingRudman et al’s (43) data (assuming 16% N/g protein), we calcu-lated the mean maximal protein intake for an 80-kg subject to be250 g/d (range: 212–292 g/d). For a 12 552-kJ energy intake, themean  maximal  dietary  protein  intake  would  be  35.1%  of  energy(range: 29.7–40.9% of energy). Therefore, dietary protein intakesgreater  than  values  in  this  range  may  result  in  hyperammonemiaand hyperaminoacidemia, which in turn likely cause some of theclinical symptoms responsible for the rabbit starvation syndromedescribed by explorers"

If this is the case, then the article should be Merged with Protein Toxicity and maybe we could make a footnote citing that over consumption of protein is another possible mechanism aside from liver failure, and note the references to hunter-gatherers who found themselves in northern areas without enough vegetation to balance their animal intake.

(This is my first time flagging a page for deletion so if I messed up in the procedure I apologize in advance).

Lunarfantom (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 21.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  16:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  16:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep My first thought was that it sounds and reads like WP:SYNTH because none of the references in the article even mention the word poisoning. I did some research and find the topic notable.
 * I did find some refs elsewhere
 * BBC
 * Haaretz
 * New Daily,
 * Health Online
 * Abstract from the Journal of Archaeological Science,
 * Journal of Animal Science,
 * Journal Article The Protein Poison,


 * Books
 * Medical Record - Volume 94, Issues 1-12 - Page 148, Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human
 * How to Stay Alive in the Woods,
 * The Hunter-gatherer Within: Health and the Natural Human Diet
 * Many Books
 * Because of the many sources available I do not think we are dealing with WP:FRINGE/PS. In the case of this article WP:NOTCLEANUP. Per WP:NEXIST, there is ample material to write an article - because this one is WP:IMPERFECT. Lightburst (talk) 17:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Your article listed as #7 Journal Article the Protein Poisoning actually has nothing to do with this page. It's titled "protein poisoning" for sure, but protein poisoning in the context of the page I'm proposing we delete, refers to an illness caused by over-consumption of protein rich meat.


 * The link you propose is "related" and therefor evidence of notability, is not about this. It's about a certain protein that was derived by chemically treating bacteria, and then injected into the veins of mammals. It is literally less related then the article on protein toxicity. (If the wikipedia "protein poisoning" page were an apple, and "protein toxicity" an orange, the book you linked would be similar to a cabbage. It looks related at a glance, but they aren't even the same field of study).
 * Most the other articles you reference are .com sites, which tend to be unreliable sources for medical information in general. Lunarfantom (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are many, many sources available - some of them are in depth. Especially in my link to books and journals. The topic is notable. Whether or not is should be WP:ATD-M will be determined, however some form of the topic should be kept and developed. Using different search terms, like rabbit starvation, etc, produces an abundance of sources. If I listed some unrelated refs above it is because I was not studying them. But just look at how many books cover rabbit starvation (I count 40). Lightburst (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah my apologies, earlier you said you'd concluded it wasn't fringe based on the sources so I misunderstood the intent. Diving a bit further, #3 the Journal of Animal Science actually concludes that protein poisoning doesn't exist, based on their experiment with feeding high-protein diets to pigs, while the "How Cooking Made us Human" article is a very old article, over 100 years, and rather questionable. (They were injecting suffers of syphilis with mercury in this very article, to give a sense of scientific timescale).


 * You raise an interesting point about the multiplicity of terms. The phrase "rabbit starvation" is part of why I flagged this, as it's rather misleading terminology with seemingly no reliable scientific backing. It's easy to find ancient literature and websites describing "rabbit starvation" but attempts to search for peer reviewed articles or any other scientific research focused upon it yield little to no results. (If you only search for the term amongst journals it's referenced casually and in passing, but finding it as the focus of a study is challenging at best). If we consider Protein Poisoning to be separate from Toxicity, I'd argue it's Questionable Science at best and Pseudoscience at worst.


 * The guidelines say "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." so I definitely think this merits a critical review. Lunarfantom (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep there's plenty of literature and primary sources specifically referring to 'rabbit starvation'. while there is some overlap with protein toxicity, this does not justify deletion, as there is a different scope for each article. protein toxicity is about a condition caused by lack of kidney function, while rabbit starvation is from a diet lacking in fat. there may be similarities, but the causes are quite different. in addition, the 'rabbit starvation' article can focus on literary/historical references and practical considerations, while 'protein toxicity' can cover the medical angle. as for the rest: it's not propaganda because the sources tend to focus on rabbit meat as a cause, and it does state clearly that it's caused by a lack of fat consumption; and copyvio can be sorted out without resorting to deletion. While we're at it, the title should be 'rabbit starvation' rather than 'protein poisoning', since the former is most commonly used term, see WP:COMMONNAME. Xcalibur (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep renamed as "Rabbit starvation". First let's untangle.  We're talking about starvation effects in humans of eating a diet with plenty of protein but a lack of fat.  We're not talking about kidney problems caused by protein toxicity.  There's no "poisoning" so this title is misleading.  A warning against rabbit starvation appears in an Air Force arctic survival guide (pgs 116,119) from 1941-47, likely derived from Stefansson's account of his direct experience.  (Looks like the Air Force source is mentioned but not cited in the article.)  Wide newspaper mentions in the 1940s, in the 40 books found by Lightburst, it might have been mentioned in Winter's Bone, I've had offline conversations about it with a nurse friend, and as described above there are tons of sources; the phrase and idea are certainly in the culture and deserve encyclopedic treatment, if only as a skeptical review of quotes from Stefansson and Darwin.  I don't know if there's medical proof or case studies, but all this is perfectly consistent with many many descriptions of fat deficiency in medical literature, so I don't see any pseudoscientific nonsense.  Is it anti-rabbit propaganda?  Sure maybe but there's no rule against that.   --Lockley (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just as a heads-up for others.  Since the nomination I've edited the article.  I've requested removal of the claimed copyright material from edits back in 2006, none of which appears in the current version.  I've also clarified protein poisoning versus protein toxicity, etc.  It's a work in progress, there's more to do (like squeeze this source), but these changes are meant to respond to the valid problems identified here and on the article's talk page.  FYI.  --Lockley (talk) 18:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No rule against propaganda?! What?! Yes, there is! "Wikipedia's goals and core content policies, including verifiability and neutral point of view." 74.78.17.187 (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or start again, this looks largely Fringe to me. At the moment two rather broad claims are being made, one) its caused by low fat consumption two) its caused by high protein consumption. Neither has a reliable medical source. It could equally be caused by a low consumption of micronutrients... insufficient consumption of a macronutrient, increased consumption of a macronutrient, and based on the fact this has occurred in so few people, easily an error of metabolism such as a genetic disorder such as a urea cycle disorder. I.e. Rabbits may be harmless in the healthy. Either way, protein poisoning is a POV not a medical fact, and even redirect doesn't seem to have enough evidence PainProf (talk) 03:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep: Not fringe as there are plenty sources specifically referring to 'rabbit starvation'. Notable IMHO - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * comment Fringe because not described in medical literature rather than pop culture. As such the sources are not reliable for causation. Which seems to be the point of this particular article.I don't think a real medical source will ever exist because responsible clinicians do not opine about disease when they have no chance to examine the pt or some kind of evidence. PainProf (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep appears to pass GNG even if through its popular understanding rather than medical coverage. ——  Serial  11:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 06:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, really a real thing. Hyperbolick (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2020 (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.