Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilson's 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   speedy keep. Nominator was a sockpuppet, no other deletion arguments. Fences &amp;  Windows  19:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wilson&
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

With all respect for any sufferers of this syndrome, I am questioning the notability of this article which looks like average, basic, well-intentioned nonsense to me. Since the median oral body temperature (among healthy adults) is actually less than the 98.6 he demands (and which old textbooks taught), it's clear that more than half the adults in the U.S. will qualify for this so-called 'diagnosis.' Is this really WP:Notable? Kala kitty  talk  22:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Struck, sock Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep: Coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources is present although not extensive (including mainstream newspaper coverage, statement from a relevant professional body [American Thyroid Association], Mayo Clinic website, and [marginally] Quackwatch). Whether or not this is "nonsense" has no bearing on its notability. On the other hand, the article could use more impartial eyes and perhaps fewer dedicated proponents. MastCell Talk 23:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The nominator's rationale for deletion is not persuasive. The article in its current form is documenting a diagnosis which is said to be quackish, or a hoax. The sources to establish that seem good. If you think the article should be deleted, it would be better to persuade us that the hoax is so insignificant and believed by so few that it's not notable. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a notable hoax. There's no convincing evidence that the disease exists, but there is lots of convincing evidence that many people think it exists.  There have also been numerous sources   reviewing the case and concluding it is not a medically justified diagnosis.  It may be wrong, but it is notable. --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article shows remarkable balance, explaining what the syndrome is said to be, and then what the medical community says about it, all without notable POV problems. I agree with MastCell, the fact that the diagnosis is nonsense doesn't change the notability of the subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - Yes, could use more impartial eyes, I will initiate dispute resolution since no Third Opinion has been given. MedBoard2 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps one (or more) of the commentators here would be willing to offer outside opinions. MastCell Talk 21:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is a notable fringe theory, not accepted as a vadlid syndrome by the Mayo Clinic or most medical doctors.  Many good sources attest to its notability. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please: Would any of the editors who have commented here care to watchlist the page? It tends to get a lot of IP and SPA drive-by edits removing the independent, reliable sources which fail to promote Wilson's syndrome, and I suspect few if any people are watching it. Any outside eyes would be much appreciated. MastCell Talk 18:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for all of the reasons stated by the sage editors that have voted before me. Verkhovensky (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Has independent comment made by the mayo clinic and quackwatch. Therefore notable. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The discussion of what it's supposed to be, as well as the Florida State Medical Board's disciplining of its proponent, was most useful. I'm amazed this guy named the "syndrome" after himself, when most of what he says is just the recycled claims of Broda Otto Barnes, who died a year or two before Dr. Wilson took over his "schtick." S  B Harris 23:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh God. Don't mention that name... MastCell Talk 23:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Broda Barnes! Broda Barnes! Broda Barnes! Neener, neener. You see, it's all useful. One gonzo guy makes discussion of a second gonzo guy that much easier. Instead of reconstructing that Bio, I can just link this article to it.  S  B Harris 02:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. My real-world experience tells me that this is notable in the real-world sense, and therefore important to document in Wikipedia. Specifically, I first heard of Wilson's syndrome when a friend was given this diagnosis by a fully credentialed mainstream medical doctor (not named Wilson), who had provided a plausible-sounding set of explanations for the diagnosis of the syndrome and the treatment with T3. When I researched Wilson's syndrome, I was disturbed (on my friend's behalf) about the hazards inherent in the T3 treatment. This was several years ago, and ever since that time I've "followed" this topic (albeit on-again, off-again). The article has been on my watchlist for a long time, and I've made a few edits to it, but I have to confess that folks like MastCell make me feel inadequate to deal with the issues that arise there. --Orlady (talk) 01:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't feel too bad. As you may know, (think of PTSD or autism spectrum) diagnoses in medicine, and treatments too, come and go partly by fashion. The same is true in the rest of science. Over the long haul, it self corrects, but over the short haul, you see the same stuff get hot, then cold, then hot, then cold. Treatment of people who are depressed with sympathomimetics (and their proxies) goes through these cycles. We get Dr. Feelgoods every generation. Fifteen years ago it was the rage for shrinks to treat the depressed elderly with small doses of T3, as a pepper-upper. And lo! It works! Since T3 is an upregulator of all the same receptors that Ritalin sticks to. There is a connection. If it weren't for the bone loss and heart arrhythmias, it might be a good treatment for the blahs in everybody, like coffee. You know? It's probably safer to use Ritalin. And that happens, too. S  B Harris 02:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, I apologize. Your input is always welcome. MastCell Talk 02:35, 27 May 2010 (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.