Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diobesity

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 per WP:NEO. I look at the google searches and would not be surprised if in a few years with sourcing that meets that standard, but the opinions below are unanimous. GRBerry 17:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diobesity

Diobesity (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Few Google results, no apparent references in reliable sources.  ::mikmt 18:33, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NEO. Budgiekiller 18:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, seems primarily linked to a single researcher (per Google Scholar), only scattered usage otherwise. e.g. --Dhartung | Talk 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - More important than Google hits are a total absence of any hits with PubMed - i.e. it appears in no reliable biomedical journal source. Of the various external links recently given: The American Diabetes Association website had no mention of the term, DiabetesAndMore.com "A 21st century crisis" used the term once in quotes. Current external links includes http://www.diobesity.org/ which has only its homepage describing type 1 & 2 diabetes functioning (subpages missing) and http://www.getunderground.com/underground/columns/article.cfm?Article_ID=1816 link is to a blog currently with page title "The Auto-Industrial Complex" !

  In general most type 2 have weight either as an issue contributing to the onset of their diabetes or aggrevating their insulin sensitivity. As such weight and type 2 diabetes have always been interlinked and this is already covered in obesity and Type 2 diabetes articles. This term "diobesity" is a made-up term having no weight in scientific literature, Budgiekiller correctly points out WP:NEO (Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms) - this is a Protologism (neologism that has not yet caught on widely). David Ruben ^Talk 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per David Ruben's comments and my similar comments in Talk:medicine. Jellytussle 08:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). trialsanderrors 18:04, 14 January 2007 (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.