Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was  delete. --BDD (talk) 18:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Burntout123/Burnt-out diabetes mellitus


Page is a deleted article that was userfied in May 2010 so it could be worked on, but the editor has done no appreciable work on it since May 2011, despite a statement in September 2013 that he intended to. The editor added 1 sentence today and changed some headers when he found out the page was going to be nominated for deletion. Userfied articles only exist so that they can be worked on and turned into viable article, but this has not happened, the draft article is essentially the same as the article deleted 4 1/2 years ago. That's more than enough time to have worked on it, it should now be deleted. BMK (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to correct something I wrote above, according to this, the article was deleted on June 3, 2011 – 3 1/2 years ago, not 4 1/2 as I stated above – and userfied to Burntout123's userspace a few days later. Since according to the page's history, Burntout123 hasn't done any real work on it since May 2011, he essentially hasn't worked on it at all. BMK (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Apparently just one not-very-influential paper used the term "burnt-out diabetes mellitus". The term fails WP:GNG; it does not rise to significance. Binksternet (talk) 07:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not appear to be a viable draft. The term appears to be a neologism (per PubMed, it's used by literally one author—note the creator of that article) and this article would likely not survive another AfD. -- Kinu  t/c 08:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of the article is copied from various websites, including NIH (e.g. ) and the infamous expertscape (e.g. ) that the user supposedly knew nothing about. The author's English is not as good as the language in the draft.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Other than sourcing the existence of the name itself (and then quite weakly), this is a completely unsourced set of medical claims which would have no chance of surviving as a medical article. Squinge (talk) 09:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Insufficient sourcing in the  medical literature to write about this neologism.  Userspace should not be used to indefinitely store copies of already-deleted articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all comments. Several experts have helped me and worked on revising the article somewhat extensively over the past 24 hours. There are 900 sites in Google on BOD. In Google Scholar there are over 70 publications on this topic, all within the past several years, with over 500 citations, and the original 2-3 papers have been cited each 20-30 times including recently in New England Journal of Medicine. Hence, the status has changed substantially. Given the focused expertise needed (and to avoid the impact of recent emotional confrontations to avoid bias) may I suggest that editors with medical and health care background be invited to review and vote here? Given the high pressure to move fast, I am going to submit this out of the userified stage very soon and ask for patience and self-restraint during the evaluation period with experts with the needed background. Thank you. S.Burntout123 (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are these revisions you write about? The changes you've made today amount to this, which is in no way a substantial-enough alteration to change the status of the article. And what do you mean by "I am going to submit this out of the userified stage very soon"?  If you try to move the current version to mainspace, the odds are good that an admin is going to delete it yet again because it's basically the same article that's already been deleted multiple times.  The odds are also pretty decent that you will be blocked for disruptive editing. BMK (talk) 01:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) Please compare 1/30/15 to the latest version. (2) There was immense pressure over the past 2 days by some editors That I need to implement all final revisions and updates ASAP and to click SUBMIT, and I am following these instructions. Have I done something wring again? S.Burntout123 (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have. Your mistake is that any new article would have to be substantialy different from the deleted one, which means -- at the very least -- much better sourced.  Simply mentioning that there are X number of cites out there isn't going to do it, you have to show that the phrase is something that's generally accepted in the medical world.  You haven't done that, and the article is substantially the same as it was - I assume that was why it was rejected. You had 3 1/2 years to fix the article, so please stop whining about having to do it under pressure now. BMK (talk) 01:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. The draft has been submitted for review. Requesting that users and editors with medical and health care background to be invited to review and discuss. The KEEP suggestion is based on this source that substantiate exceptional significance and notability in medicine and public health: Google Scholar indexed publications on burnt-out diabetes S.Burntout123 (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I just declined this AfC submission. --L235 (talk) As a courtesy, please ping me when replying. 01:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as an inadequately sourced neologism. Since the creator of the draft submitted it for AfC review without having made any substantial changes, and since the term only appears in a very few papers with the same author/co-author, it seems very clear that the term is not notable and the draft is not going to be an acceptable article any time soon. Google Scholar is a less reliable indicator than PubMed; note that most of the GScholar results are not papers that actually discuss the concept. --bonadea contributions talk 07:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * After spending past several days on finding more sources to support this topic I have to agree that the main 5 or 6 publications have all been by the same several authors while the other 60-70 articles citing these papers and the term "burnt out" or "burned out" diabetes are from other authors or scientists. The criticism of neologism may not be quite correct, because according to the old source (some popular Indian newspaper) the term has been in use by Indian (or likely British?) clinicians for a long time, maybe decades or longer. S.Burntout123 (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The work you performed on the article in the last few days is not enough to save it. You added a bit of text, a Google search link (!) and an off-topic webpage about renal failure, one which does not say "burn" let alone "burnt" or "burnt-out". I don't see the required in-depth coverage. Binksternet (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No question that the rushed work of the past 72-96 hrs was not good enough. I was pressured to rush into doing this suddenly with the claim that I had 2-3 years to do it and failed to do it. Yes I failed. Let me repeat the analogy of being audited by IRS for the past 6 years of your tax return while the government maintains that you had 6 years to put your income data together, and you know that the unexpected tax audit has other ulterior motives. To do a quality work and given my 2 years of negligence and stagnation on this article, it really needs more time and more thoughts. Hope that one of the unbiased senior administrators come up with win-win solutions here in the best interest of WP goals and spirit. -S.Burntout123 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The pity tactic is not gaining you any leverage. The deletion of this article is not that big of a deal. The article can be rewritten without much trouble is there's a couple of strong new sources. I'm not an administrator but I'm a senior editor who knows pretty well what kind of articles can survive this deletion process. I think the current "burnt-out" article cannot survive. Binksternet (talk) 16:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Pitty tactic aside I am trying to be candid here, so that it is clear how this page suddenly becomes a focus after 2+ years of quiescence. Going back to the notability issue, it appears that only one group has used the term proactively including as the title of publications in 4 articles, whereas the other 70 published articles have mentioned the term in the body of the text .  In the British medicine system, however, the term "burnt out diabetes" has been used for decades and this is mentioned even by Indian physicians (India traditionally practices medicine per British system), see The Hindu India's National Newspaper, Sunday, Nov 09, 2003: "Once the kidneys are more severely damaged, blood sugar levels may drop because the kidneys retain insulin in the body and a stage of "burnt out diabetes" may occur."  Thereafter it was systematically discussed by Csaba P. Kovesdy and her his coauthors in 4 papers that are well cited. -S.Burntout123 (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Csaba P. Kovesdy is a man. BMK (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In general, please do not delete other people's comments, as you did the one just above this. There are an extremely narrow set of circumstances in which removal of another editor's comments could be justified -- please see WP:TPO for the details. BMK (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, don't change your own comment once someone has responded to it, unless you use the strikeout method, as I've indicated above. BMK (talk) 04:46, 8 February 2015 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.