Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain fog
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 to delete, default to keep. There's consensus, though, that this should be merged and/or made into a disambiguation page if kept. Sandstein 21:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Brain fog
This is a highly subjective term that leads its own life on messaging boards for hypochondriacs. The article is entirely constructed of original research trying to sound pseudoscientific by employing neurological terminology. It could also be termed "I just don't feel right, doc". Delete, no merge opportunities. JFW | T@lk 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Lacks refs and is a colloquialism with no specific definition. The only useable reference in the article actually discusses chemo brain, a notable topic which has its own article. Note: saw this AfD in a posting at WT:MED, in the interest of full disclosure. MastCell Talk 22:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or possibly merge to one line in organic brain syndrome or mental confusion, which should be merged with each other anyway. Non notable and obfuscates rather than clarifies knowledge. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Simply delete. Appears to be a coatrack on which to hang an external link to a website of the same name. Nothing to do with either chemo brain or organic brain syndrome. -- The Anome (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep A common term for a valid symptom for people with fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and other similar disorders. As someone highly familiar with research around fibromyalgia research, I would request that one consider this valid and not simply throw it out as a hypochondriasis, a dismissal that happens far too often with people who suffer from that all-too-real disease. Eauhomme (talk) 07:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: If you're familiar with the usage of this term in fibromyalgia research, perhaps you could provide some reliable sources we could use in the article? Peer-reviewed literature or material from organizations with a reputation for accuracy and respectability would be most useful. MastCell Talk 02:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete Let's stick to medical terms that appear in medical dictionaries, rather than neologisms. Colin°Talk 09:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Brain fog seems to be a genuine term used in some reliable sources to describe either Post-chemotherapy cognitive impairment or alternatively a form of mental confusion when associated with among ather things intoxication, ageing, and the medical conditions listed in the article. Since the first use already has an article I'd merge any relevant information intothe Mental confusion article which can be verified by reliable sources (which might include: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]). Guest9999 (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep/merge There are many scholarly sources which mention this including a book on the subject which I have cited in the lede. No doubt there are other articles on similar and related topics but this material should be merged rather than deleted. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- merge concept that won't have been mentioned in the mainstream, WP:RS press independently of M.E., fibro and such like- not independently notable. Sticky Parkin 18:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Unless someone has a really conclusive source stating that this topic falls under one specific medical term/article, its merger would be a sort of original research. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
- Impaired concentration is a pretty common feature of many psychiatric and medical illnesses, from depression to influenza. I can't see how reifying it in this particular case is helpful or informative, hence merging option. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Please take the time to read Wikipedia:Speedy keep before arguing that an AfD should be closed as "speedy keep". MastCell Talk 02:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I seriously believe that the reason behind this AfD is bias and POV, hence my vote. Thanks. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Please take the time to read Wikipedia:Speedy keep before arguing that an AfD should be closed as "speedy keep". MastCell Talk 02:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Impaired concentration is a pretty common feature of many psychiatric and medical illnesses, from depression to influenza. I can't see how reifying it in this particular case is helpful or informative, hence merging option. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- AFD discussions are not votes. The point of some of the discussion is that confusion is a symptom of many, many illnesses. IMO, treating it as a single 'thing' without redirecting to mental confusion or something similar is far more original research as it would require lumping a whole bunch of conditions together on one ill-defined page. WLU (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- The de jure understanding of policy is that AfD contributions are not votes. At the same time, the de facto form and its interpretation by closing admins are most certainly democratic-like vote tallies (even deletion review is in form such a process). That aside, brain fog is a valid term and topic as judged by referencable sources. An editor's sense of truth (opinion, POV, or otherwise), even if comprehensible, is supposed to be mostly irrelevant. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Except there are no reliable sources - there's a source that could go in chemobrain, there's an unreliable discussion in a self-published source which is very far from a WP:MEDRS, and an EL that's to a forum, also out per WP:MEDMOS and solely about ME/CVS from the look of it. Based on extant sources, there's no reason to keep the page. Also, !votes with opinions and rationales are given far more weight than just votes and per nom/X statements. I don't actually see a keep rationale based on notability. "Because I think another editor is biased/POV" is most definitely not a reason to keep a page and unconvincing to most editors. WLU (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are many reliable sources available for this, as I said above. The symptom seems associated with a variety of conditions such as hepatitis C and so does not belong with a single one of them. In covering symptoms as topics, we should use the lay language which patients use to describe them. Patients suffering from brain fog are more likely to use such plain English rather than jargon like aphasia. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've heard quite a few laypeople describe the symptom of aphasia, and while they've used many interesting metaphors, "brain fog" is not among them. We should absolutely use the correct term, but we should also explain that term properly. Layperson's terms are great, but this is after all an encyclopedia and some level of actual terminology and knowledge would be useful. Take a look at WP:MEDMOS for starters. We don't say: "Hepatitis C is when a tiny bug gets in your liver and messes it up and gives you brain fog." MastCell Talk 22:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- There are many reliable sources available for this, as I said above. The symptom seems associated with a variety of conditions such as hepatitis C and so does not belong with a single one of them. In covering symptoms as topics, we should use the lay language which patients use to describe them. Patients suffering from brain fog are more likely to use such plain English rather than jargon like aphasia. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Except there are no reliable sources - there's a source that could go in chemobrain, there's an unreliable discussion in a self-published source which is very far from a WP:MEDRS, and an EL that's to a forum, also out per WP:MEDMOS and solely about ME/CVS from the look of it. Based on extant sources, there's no reason to keep the page. Also, !votes with opinions and rationales are given far more weight than just votes and per nom/X statements. I don't actually see a keep rationale based on notability. "Because I think another editor is biased/POV" is most definitely not a reason to keep a page and unconvincing to most editors. WLU (talk) 21:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- The de jure understanding of policy is that AfD contributions are not votes. At the same time, the de facto form and its interpretation by closing admins are most certainly democratic-like vote tallies (even deletion review is in form such a process). That aside, brain fog is a valid term and topic as judged by referencable sources. An editor's sense of truth (opinion, POV, or otherwise), even if comprehensible, is supposed to be mostly irrelevant. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- AFD discussions are not votes. The point of some of the discussion is that confusion is a symptom of many, many illnesses. IMO, treating it as a single 'thing' without redirecting to mental confusion or something similar is far more original research as it would require lumping a whole bunch of conditions together on one ill-defined page. WLU (talk) 04:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Redirect to Joe Versus the Volcano. A "brain cloud" is a fictional disease invented within that film by an unscrupulous doctor to trick Joe into thinking he's dying. That seems more notable than the made-up syndrome described here. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete or briefly merge to mental confusion. As Colonel Warden says, there indeed is a book on this subject. In fact, there appears to be precisely one book on the topic: "Brain Fog" by Dr. Binyamin Rothstein. The book has been, I think, heavily promoted. Note that Binyamin Rothstein is not a psychologist or psychiatrist or anything of the sort. He's an osteopath. I haven't read it, but everything about the book that I've seen indicates that it is a popular "sickness of the day" publication, not a work of science. That doesn't mean that the topic shouldn't have all or part of an article, but the current one, which treats it as medical science, is misleading in my opinion. Tim Ross (talk) 00:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- How about disambiguate - there are a variety of conditions that produce mental confusion. Some have their own articles (chemobrain and it's awkward on-wiki title being one of them). 'Types' that are notable enough to have their own page can be disambiguated. I think there's a need for distinction between the various types of mental confusion that exist and condition-specific pages, but there's no need for a mostly unsourced page with a single inappropriate external link (and seems dedicated to ME brainfog exclusively) and a pop book that is self-published. The sole other reference is appropriate for the chemobrain page. If not DAB, the delete, but a loose page dedicated to a nebulous concept isn't a good choice. WLU (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- I like the disambiguate suggestion (which I suppose is a form of "keep", with a request to edit the page so that it becomes a disambiguation page). Since the term "brain fog" seems to be used often enough that someone may want to look it up in wikipedia, links to all actual medical topics that may be relevant to the term "brain fog" could be useful. Either that, or edit the article heavily to make it clear that this is not a generally accepted medical term. Klausness (talk) 12:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Disambiguate. Like WLU and Klausness said, it seems that there are many situations that one could term "Brain fog". For someone trying to look it up here, a disambiguation page would direct them to some possible causes/diseases/states. Jkasd 18:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Disambiguate per above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment For a model of how to disambiguate this, see Headache which is likewise a lay term for a symptom which is the result of many different medical conditions. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:38, 29 May 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.
