Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toxic headache


 * 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   redirect to headache.  MBisanz  talk 13:05, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Toxic headache

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

This article makes a confused OR case for a condition that does not, in fact, exist. Headaches may indeed occur in poisoning as well as systemic inflammation, but not under this name and not due to the causes listed. No supportive sources, unverifiable. JFW | T@lk  13:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator, and that this article does not meet WP:MEDRS, and never will seeing as the term is not used in the medical profession. PubMed reveals no real results for this term, and Scholar reveals that the term is only used colloquially. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is original research. -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. As stated, the article is original research and contains massive amounts of jargon. Spencer Divonn'io the Glorious 16:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anhydrobiosis (talk • contribs)


 *  Delete , toxic headache is not a recognised term. All this article seems to be saying is some environmental causes for headaches which the credible ones could have been mentioned briefly in the headache article rather than create a new article.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 *  Delete , WP:V. Not verifiable. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge, a quick look at the history confirms my feeling that this is another long-standing hoax article. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.   —Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you guys sure about this? It's not in ICD-10 as some separate entity, but here are are some sources that mention it:
 * NINDS "After migraine, the most common type of vascular headache is the toxic headache produced by fever." (same text appears at Med. College of Wisconsin)
 * Uni. of Maryland: "The second most common type of vascular headache is toxic headache."
 * Dorland's Medical Dictionary for Healthcare Consumers "toxic headache &mdash; a type caused by systemic poisoning or certain illnesses."
 * lists as a separate type, synonymous with rebound headache. (Line L in table 2.1).
 * " lists it under headeach as subtype: "toxic headeache that due to systemic poisoning. Such may be exogenous (e.g., due to poisonous gases, four or polluted air, fumes from solvents or furnaces; various drugs such as as atropine, histamine, morphine, quinine, tobacco) or endogenous in origin (due e.g., to absorption of bacterial toxins; fever; bacteremia)
 * I could go on, but this appears to be sufficient evidence to at least make this article a redirect to Rebound headache, although a dab would probably be better. Xasodfuih (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the problem, the term is used rather widely but non-specifically to apply to many subjects. We could redirect to rebound headache, but then it wouldn't be related to vascular headaches or tension headaches. It's essentially a general term for a headache related to external causes. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All Wikipedia articles on headaches are a mess! See my comment on WT:MED. Serious clean-up is needed in this area, but I don't think that deleting them is good idea right now. This article corresponds to the 1962 NIH classification system. In ICD-10 it would roughly be G44.820, and in ICHD-2 7.1.2 (see ) Xasodfuih (talk) 08:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Xas has got me reconsidering my vote somewhat now. I do not think that the article should be merged with rebound headache as toxic headache is not the same as rebound and most of the content is not about rebound effect but a toxic effect whilst exposed to a triggering agent, eg allergen exposure, environmental toxins and so forth. I think now that some references have been found and added that if the article is deleted that the data should be moved to a subsection of the headache article. I now am of the opinion that this article should either be kept or merged.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  09:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I lean more towards merging into the headache article. The headache article does not even have a defined causes section, so I reckon Merge.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  12:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This 2007 source calls headaches due to toxins, headaches of organic origins. http://books.google.com/books?id=MaDJ6nlaQKYC&pg=PA213&dq=toxic+headaches&lr=&ei=piiHSfDiMKOMkQTRqe2pBg  I think the whole collection of headache articles needs to be rearranged around accepted current diagnostic system.  This looks like a term commonly used in the 1920s.  Should we use the ICD 10 and change the name of this page? http://216.25.100.131/ihscommon/guidelines/pdfs/ihc_II_main_no_print.pdf -- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that this article is not about "toxic headache", it is headache attributed to intoxication. That's not the same thing. It needs a rewrite. JFW | T@lk  22:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * delete (plus possible selective merger of material to headache). entity is an artificial and hetertogenous construct, which should not be reified by an article in this way. Misleading Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. As all of the delete !voters seem to agree,  the pre-nomination versions of this article are hopeless.  Wikipedia should have information on the actual condition (although, as Casliber notes, it's not really a unitary condition, and is therefore less precise than several other descriptive terms), not on someone's etymology-based misunderstanding of it.  Meeting this goal could be achieved by deleting the existing article and then creating a good version, or by redirecting it and moving the tiny bit of salvageable information to Headache.  I'm personally inclined to the merge, but I wouldn't actually object to deletion if a separate article were really wanted.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Have decided to be bold. Moved what the page was trying to describe to the ICHD name.  Removed the references as the previous refs didn't support the content.  The previous page referenced a type of headache one get with a fever and then talk about headaches due to toxins.  Two very different thing.  Still a work in progress.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I think I have fixed enough so that it no longer needs deletion.  Therefore removed tags.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done, good compromise, problem has been addressed now. I would be tempted to close this discussion. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:18, 4 February 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.