Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Survivor Acquired Brain Injury


 * 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 the useful content from this article appears to have been merged into Acquired Brain Injury. Since this isn't a term people will use to search for Acquired Brain Injury, I don't see a need to keep the title as a redirect. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Survivor Acquired Brain Injury

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

Looks like a neologism; the term only appears to be in use on the two sites linked from the article. KurtRaschke (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - what could such an article contain, that would not properly be included in the article Acquired brain injury? - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - based on google search, highly probable that it is a WP:neologism. Richard Cavell raises an excellent point.  Fraud  talk to me  02:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - in use also on facebook, myspace, yahoo health groups, amazon, acronymfinder, veterans, free dictionary, msn groups, etc.; ABI in use at World Health Organization--Sabisue (talk) 06:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Regarding the argument that this topic could be covered under the category "acquired brain injury", Wikipedia has an article on cancer, but it also has an article on cancer survivor separate from the cancer article. This is the same kind of thing. Also, Wikipedia has an article on the psychiatric survivor movement that is not listed under the topic of psychiatric disorders. There is a difference between discussing conditions and people with conditions. Thank you for considering. --Sabisue (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please don't vote twice. --Itub (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sabisue, I acknowledge that there is medical and other doctrine on the issue of those who identify themselves as a 'cancer survivor' or 'psychiatric therapy survivor'. In the former case, I claim that the need to separate 'cancer survivor' into a different article is because cancer is a huge, huge subject. It is unfeasible to have all the encyclopedic information on cancer survivors in the same article as cancer. However, any good oncology textbook will have a chapter on what patients go through, and so being a cancer survivor is part of oncology doctrine. As to being a psychiatry survivor - this idea is contrary to mainstream medicine, and is at least partly overlapping with certain religious and social movements (such as Scientology) that are a separate subject to mainstream psychiatry. The doctrine that surrounds 'psychiatry survivor' is removed from what one would find in a psychiatry textbook. That is why it has a separate article - because it's on a different subject to 'psychiatry', and is at least partly in conflict with it. I do not doubt that there ought to be information on wikipedia as to what an acquired brain injury patient goes through - but I distinguish the examples you've given, and claim that the subject of this AfD does not need a separate article. - (Doctor) Richard Cavell (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Zero hits in Google scholar and Google books. Being used in Facebook, Yahoo Groups, etc. is not sufficient to satisfy the notability requirements. --Itub (talk) 08:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I went to Google Scholar also, and there are 4,670 hits for Survivor Acquired Brain Injury. --Sabisue (talk) 14:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Correction You only get that if you count any article that contains the individual words "survivor" and "acquired" and "brain" and "injury" in any place in the document, including a sentence like "If that guy on the television show Survivor had actually used his brain, he would not have acquired that injury to his foot." If you look for the complete phrase "survivor acquired brain injury" (must use double quotes in the search), then there are zero matches. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Acquired brain injury. I suppose a short sentence there explaning the term would suffice. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid some people do not understand. This is not about being a patient, or medical terminology per say. This is about surviving an acquired brain injury. This is about living afterwards. Community reintegration. Public policy for us. You are limiting the scope by only acknowledging the medical, which would be (one side of) the professional perspective, of it. Referring to us as merely "patients" is completely inappropriate. This shows a bias here on Wikipedia, at least from the people who have commented so far. Cancer is a vast subject, but so is acquired brain injury. What is this business about showing boldness on Wikipedia? Not so with this abundance of naysayers. Whether you think our terminology is notable is important in analysis done here on Wikipedia, but it must remain unimportant to us. We do not want researchers to write a book about us. We are living with this condition and do not want scientists and researchers to co-opt this term and what we are doing for ourselves with collective self-advocacy, thus taking over our debate. That has been the problem up until now so we are marginalized in society as "patients" or "clients" or "brain damaged people", not human beings. This is about a vast group of people that used to be "normal", but are now relegated to second class status because of cognitive and other challenges generated by ABI.  This is about human and civil rights. Everyone chooses to speak for us, and we have not been allowed to organize and speak for ourselves, collectively, until recently. This is a critical subset of society that has trouble thinking and processing information and also articulating position statements and thus is entitled to a special status as a separate category from "brain injury" or "acquired brain injury", because these topics are quite scientific in nature, do not address the non-scientific aspects of being a survivor of acquired brain injury and also are beyond the ability of many people with acquired brain injuries to comprehend or utilize.  It will not matter if Wikipedia does not accept us. We will add Wikipedia to the majority of society, which are intolerant and ignorant as to our presence, except as potential patients and clients. As a matter of fact, we will add the example of rejection by Wikipedia in our on-going commentary as another rejection of our status as equal partners with other human beings in the world as another trauma we have to bear. We will turn any rejection by Wikipedia or its editors to a positive for us in some way, because that is how we move on from adversity, and turn the negative, which we have had to endure in abundance, to a positive. By the way, it is likely that at least one reader here will become a survivor of acquired brain injury someday, and if and when you come out of the daze you may see this whole subject differently. If at that point you can remember about us, we will try to be of help to you.  --Sabisue (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC) 15:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Until I'd waded through the above discussion, I hadn't realised that the intended subject of the article was survivor, and not the injury, as implied by the word order in the title. I've no opinion on notability, but if it continues to fail WP:V, I don't see how the article can be sustained. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - In the section on "reliable sources" --Itub, it says, "Special cases may arise; and editors should be careful not to exclude a point of view merely because it lacks academic credentials."--Sabisue (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - You have hit upon an important point, --AlexTiefling]. This was listed first under the topic of survivor. Over there there is a horse named Survivor listed, and if a horse can get listed I would think people who are Survivors of ABI should be able to get listed. There is a reason why we use "survivor acquired brain injury", in that order. We are respecting the long-term convention in the Disability Rights Movement entitled "People First". We list the person first and the label second. This is so the person is not identified by a label, for example, "blind person". Under "People First" Philosophy the politically correct identification is "person with a visual impairment", or along those lines. Therefore, it is "Survivor (of) Acquired Brain Injury". --[[User:Sabisue|Sabisue (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The 'of' is important. If this article is kept, could I propose that it's moved to Survivor of acquired brain injury, please? As it is, the title suggests a brain injury acquired by a survivor. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. Most people are going to want to see it with the "of" in there. We are used to saying "SABI" and we know what we mean, but I think many people would be confused without the "of". Using "of" would make it clearer, and we are interested in clarity for everyone. Thank you. I didn't think to look to see if there was a section already entitled "Survivor of Acquired Brain Injury"? I will go look. --Sabisue (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Regarding WP:V, would citation to the Brain Injury Network be indicative of reliability? The BIN is a national survivor non-profit that has been in operation for more than a few years. It is listed in DMOZ. It is listed in Google, Yahoo and Alltheweb in the field of acquired brain injury public policy. If this were listed as a citation instead of a link, would that meet the standard? Another group, which I tried to list as a link, but which was for some reason automatically deleted, also establishes the reliability of the article. It was http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/survivoracquiredbraininjury. I would also argue that in the modern day on-line news entities have accepted and reported survivoracquiredbraininjury as a reliable and notable term by their use of the term. --Sabisue (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are zero Google news hits as well. This term apparently hasn't made the news, outside of blogs, mailing lists, and online forums. The inclusion criteria of dmoz.org and other web directories are completely different from those of Wikipedia. --Itub (talk) 22:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I guess I am not allowed to make some adjustments to the article while it is in this "article for deletion" status? What is the time-frame for resubmission of a better article with more references? A month? A year? Five years? --Sabisue (talk) 21:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you are strongly encouraged to make adjustments; a major benefit of deletion discussions is that articles very frequently get vastly improved. At the worst this should survive as a redirect to the ABI article, which could use some work.  The main thing is creating good content, and  providing sources for it. Where it goes is secondary. As is obvious, there has been a lot of confusion because of the title, so the article should at the least be renamed, as the current name for this notable topic is not immediately understandable English and not widespread enough to  be immediately recognizable. The main thing for keeping an article is providing good sources that substantially treat the article's topic. There are of course many sources appropriate to the topic of surviving brain injury e.g. Brain Injury Survivor's Guide: Welcome to Our World ISBN 1432716204  or more medical oriented sources. Regards,John Z (talk) 06:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - Pardon me, but for the purposes of this AfD Debate, how did Survivor Acquired Brain Injury get listed in the Category of Science and Technology? It belongs in something more akin to "Society Topics", I do believe, because, while, as I said earlier, the medical side is a part of being a "Survivor of Acquired Brain Injury" there are many additional facets that deal with human rights, self-empowerment, self-advocacy, day-to-day living, public policy, community integration, flat out survival, stigma, law, legal rights and protections, and a host of other non-scientific and technological topics. --Sabisue (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that this is the right category. I suppose semantically 'society' would be a better category, but the medical articles all end up in 'science and technology', and the kind of editor who takes an interest in S&T AfDs is likely to be the kind of editor who would take an interest in your article. The society topics tend to dwell on party politics, philosophy, and so on. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - May I play devil's advocate here? I note that there are advocacy groups for those who have certain medical conditions - for example, 'little people' (dwarfism). For that matter, concepts like affirmative action, black power and nigger don't belong in the negro article. Is the author postulating that 'Survivor ABI' represents a social movement that is sufficiently separated from the concept of acquired brain injury that it cannot be said to be on the same topic? I can prove that affirmative action, black power and nigger are concepts that have had volumes of books published on them and websites devoted to them. Is 'Survivor ABI' in a similar category? The burden of proof should go on the author here, and I guess WP:V is the appropriate policy. - Richard Cavell (talk) 22:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I am indeed saying that there is a social movement sufficiently separated from the concept of ABI, Mr. Cavell. I see that the burden of proof is to prove that with citation and such. Not an easy task, since our movement is just now coalescing, but it is there. I still may not be able to prove our case to some of the people here; I can see that. Am I able to refine the article already during this stage? --Sabisue (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I went to Google Scholar also, and there are 4,670 hits for Survivor Acquired Brain Injury. This matter is very confusing, because many terms are in use including brain injury survivor, head trauma survivor, tbi survivor, abi survivor, abi/tbi survivor, tbi/abi survivor, stroke survivor, aneurysm survivor, brain cancer survivor, locked-in syndrome survivor, meningitis survivor, and many more. There are books, forums, scientific studies, news articles, blogs, etc. using all of these various tags. However, the one term that encapsulates all of these is the larger category "acquired brain injury" and therefore we use Acquired Brain Injury Survivor. And, with a nod to the People First, Independent Living, and Disability Rights Movements, we have placed the word Survivor in front of the label ABI, not behind it. The term "brain injury survivor" is too broad, because medically "brain injury" includes some categories that fall outside of ABI, such neurodegenerative brain disorders and congenital brain injuries (evident at or from birth). The other tags listed above are too narrow for a catchall term. The one term that represents all of the ABI's is ABI itself, of course, and so we associate our primary word "survivor" with the term ABI. But first and foremost we are survivors. That is why we listed initially under the "Survivor" article in Wikipedia. Anyway, Survivor Acquired Brain Injury says who we are and is used in our movement. Yes, we have a political and social agenda past the medical term (acquired) brain injury, and yes, our movement is ordered enough to be a separate topic from ABI. So say we at the Brain Injury Network, the one national survivor of ABI non-profit "self and collective" advocacy and public policy agency that is actually operated by survivor consumers with ABI here in the U.S.A. Our Board of Directors is all survivors, SABI's, and we would like to see an article about the Survivor of Acquired Brain Injury movement here on Wikipedia. However perhaps encyclopedias want material that is settled, not dynamic in nature? And, about this idea that we be in the news, or on the lecture circuit about it or whatever. Please, we are a lot of people with disabilities, some can't travel, or read, or do basic math, or think, and some live in nursing homes and under bridges and most have few resources. So don't expect the moon from us. We just would like our perspective on things to be acknowledged. --Sabisue (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I didn't realize until just now that there were some statements entered under earlier comments. I had already written the above material and will let it stand. I appreciate the additional comments that I have just now read. Yes, there are plenty of books to deal with surviving a brain injury written by survivors. There were plenty of books even five and ten and more years ago (before Brain Injury Survivor's Guide) That one is on the new side and gets plenty of advertising, but there are so many others. But, again, using the term "brain injury survivor" doesn't quite match up with the medical community's terminology. Because, as I said, a brain injury can mean many things besides an acquired brain injury. But, basically, a lot of these consumer written books are talking about one thing, surviving an ABI of some sort, whether it be a tbi, a stroke, a tumor, etc; although usually it appear the books in which consumers speak about "surviving a brain injury" are quite often the tbi related books. The use of "Acquired Brain Injury" (ABI) is here to stay. There are thousands of cites in Google Scholar for ABI. (And there are also thousands for brain injury and traumatic brain injury, etc.) ABI is more a term used in the rest of the world, but it is catching on in the USA and the newer medical research articles, also. Now the newest thing, if you really want to know, that is going on is the phrase "tbi/abi" (lumping them together) is being used, and it is confusing the dickens out of lots of survivors (and a lot of others, too). There are people insisting they have had a tbi, because the term is so prevelant in the community, when in fact the person has had a stroke or SAH or something else, some other kind of ABI, not TBI. And there are even some universities using a TBI definition under the topic of "ABI" instead of using an ABI definition. TBI is just a sub-category of ABI, but people don't get that. Very confusing. We need to clean this up. Some people don't even now have the straight scoop on their own diagnosis. And they need to. So, we would like to clarify the usage of these terms, and this is part of our public policy mandate. We say that since there is the larger category "Acquired Brain Injury" in use about us medically (and it does indeed describe the lot of us with more accuracy than any other term in use), in conjunction with that we are "Survivors of Acquired Brain Injury". --Sabisue (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I see why it was listed in the Science and Technology section now, thanks. --Sabisue (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Acquired Brain Injury as a new section, and develop both medical and social content of that article appropriately. Split later, if necessary, once the article is much longer. AlexTiefling (talk) 20:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 16:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism, zero hits on google scholar. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's a relatively new term used by a small special interest group as a way of differentiating themselves from groups that support people with acquired brain injuries.  While survivors of TBIs have many issues, there is absolutely no need for this "brand name" for that issue to get its own special article on Wikipedia.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - You are incorrect, sir, to refer to we all as survivors of tbi. At least one half of the people associated with our organization do not have tbi's. They have other forms of abi's, if you know what that means. --Sabisue (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Oh, we don't particularily care if we get our own special article in Wikipedia. We just want to be listed someplace in here. Now this thing about "brand name" is really ludicrious. That implies some kind of a commercial enterprise, which we are not. Serving people with ABI'? What do you mean? We are the people with ABI's. We ourselves. --Sabisue (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Everyone needs a "movement" now to represent their interests? Merge whatever is salveageble into acquired brain injury but with care. JFW | T@lk  06:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC) I'm not totally opposed to this suggestion about merger. Thank you. --Sabisue (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, we have a movement. Look at the public policy we have deliniated, if you are truly interested, and you will see. Thank you. --Sabisue (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I knew it would cause a problem if this were placed under the "medical" category discussion, and it is causing a problem, but only a little one, really. This topic should be moved to Society, because we are dealing with issues vastly beyond the medical community, and really do not appreciate the negative views about who and what we are, as if it were the business of anyone in particular in the medical community. --Sabisue (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I have no idea how to merge in Wikipedia anyway. I really didn't know much about Wikipedia, and obviously didn't know how and who plays the game here. So far I am finding it to be on the negative side. My votes are Keep the positive people here who are offering some constructive ideas. --Sabisue (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - My position on the updating of the "acquired brain injury" article is that someone with special medical professional credentials, such as a neurologist or neurosurgeon, for example, should do the updating. That is not me. Are any of you commenting actually neurologists or neurosurgeons? I am able to speak with authority only on the societal aspects of survivors of acquired brain injury. --Sabisue (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I tried to merge but there is virtually no useful content; some of the psychosocial repercussions and actual concerns of these patients can certainly be added to the acquired brain injury article. However, the article we are discussing is merely about a movement. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is not supposed to an article about brain injury patients. We aren't just patients. I am just not getting what the big deal is about us having our own social and human rights agenda. We are thinking beyond the medical box. I fail to see why we can't do that. It must be my brain injury. --Sabisue (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2008 (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.