Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Einstein syndrome

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 delete, concerns raised by nominator not addressed. --Coredesat 07:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Einstein syndrome

Einstein syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Relies entirely on self-published sources and works by one author, which expound on this condition. Fails WP:N, as this syndrome lacks independent, reliably sourced evidence of notability. No medical, scientific, or non-Thomas-Sowell-authored sources describe this syndrome. MastCell Talk 23:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, relies entirely on self-published work by one author, and I was not able to locate any other reliable info about the alleged condition. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not an established syndrome by any medical authority. Unable to establish notability due to lack of reliable sources since, as MastCell and Sandy have noted, all the references are connected to the economist-author Thomas Sowell. No PubMed sources. Google search reveals many non-RS blog discussions, but little else. -- MarcoTolo 23:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Original research, fails WP:V and WP:NOT Rackabello 23:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Not original research, seeing how it's based on an actual book and all, but still just one book. A silly idea, probably makes parents feel better if their kid doesn't start talking when the baby book says it's supposed to. If you liked Restless leg syndrome, then you'll love Einstein syndrom. I loved the list of retrospective sufferers. G. Gordon Liddy had Einstein syndrome? So what the hell happened? Mandsford 23:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC) I am persuaded that I judged this one too quickly, and am registering a keep vote below. Mandsford 18:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Restless Leg Syndrome is a recognized disorder, unlike this one although it might sound like a silly name.DGG (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Have any of you actually read Thomas Sowell's book on the subject? I have. It is not, so far as I am aware, self-published. The theory he puts forward has, unless I am greatly mistaken, been endorsed by Stephen M. Camarata, a leading authority on late-talking children. And no less a scientist than Steven Pinker is quoted on the back cover of my paperback copy as saying: "Often it takes an outsider to recognize a profound phenomenon that the specialists have overlooked, and The Einstein Syndrome is a prime example. Thomas Sowell, trained in economics, famous for his political commentary, and widely honored for his magisterial works on race, culture, and history, has thrown new light on a fascinating topic that until now has been poorly documented...[.] I have found The Einstein Syndrome, like Sowell's previous book on late-talking children, filled with insight, acute observations, and fertile ideas." — alderbourne 00:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Are you aware of any independent, reliable secondary sources corroborating the importance of this syndrome, and if so, could you cite them here? I'm not being snarky, I just have not been able to find such sources, and without them, the syndrome, while it may or may not be a useful construct, fails Wikipedia's specific definition of notability. Book cover blurbs alone aren't enough. MastCell Talk 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Mandsford, if you had read Thomas Sowell's book — and it is clear you haven't — you wouldn't have made such ill-informed remarks. Sowell appears to have identified a previously undescribed syndrome that, while resembling Asperger Syndrome, differs from it in important respects. His views have been endorsed by such distinguished authorities as Stephen M. Camarata and Steven Pinker. By the way, your comment about G. Gordon Liddy is as ignorant as it is flippant. Having what Sowell has chosen to call Einstein Syndrome doesn't mean that one is a genius. And in any case what do you know about Liddy? Have you read his autobiography, Will? Probably not. — Jake Rilko 01:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    No, I haven't read his autobiography. How did you know my name was Will?

Mandsford 21:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: If this is truly an important new syndrome, then we should be able to cite independent confirmation of its existence, in the form of reliable sources. I haven't been able to find such sources; if you know of some, please cite them here. MastCell Talk 03:15, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
There's essentially nothing in the medical literature, but I found a book review by Isabelle Rapin, a well-known and well-published autism expert. She doesn't seem to think much of it. [1] "Early, individualized intervention is mandatory for children, no matter how bright, whose language comprehension is inadequate, and for those with troublesome behavioral traits bordering on or indicative of an autistic spectrum (pervasive developmental disorder/PDD) diagnosis. Children with isolated abilities who are functionally inept in every day life are not 'Einstein children' and their deficits must be addressed promptly and specifically." As far as I can tell, this is the only piece published indepdently from the book itself that even acknowledges the existence of this theory. Since her review was written in 2002, it doesn't seem that the theory is taking hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, poorly constructed WP:COATRACK of an article. The appropriate topic would be the book Sowell wrote, which probably passes WP:BK fairly easily. In that article Sowell's non-expert hypotheses could be discussed. --Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. This is not a formal diagnosis in the sense that it has no DSM criteria and has no notability outside the speculative work by its protagonist. Could be merged with its author without further difficulty. JFW | T@lk 06:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. As noted above, no independent sources to show notability. It appears that this theory has not gained any significant attention from the medical community. Cap'n Walker 14:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: googling through .edu domain finds another definition of the "Einstein syndrome": idea that science usually progresses through giant intellectual leaps [2]. (No suggestion from me how notable this definition is.) Pavel Vozenilek 18:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete for lack of notability, sources. If the book is shown to be notable (shouldn't be too hard for an interested editor to find out and prove), this can be moved to an article about the book. Alternatively merge into the author's article. Striking out this sentence, as I see the info is already in the author's article. Wikipedia is not an arbiter of what is medically "important," and can only judge this based on the existence of multiple, reliable, independent sources. Someguy1221 00:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Upon further review, I conclude that is goes beyond a theory-of-the-week. Child psychiatry is a field that is constantly evolving, and there are instances where recognition of particular signals from a child can result in the child receiving proper guidance (in this case, the "treatment" is in the educational process). I consider this to be similar to Reactive attachment disorder, which is sometimes ridiculed because of its acronym (RAD), just as attention deficit disorder once was. While I engaged in my own ridicule of a diagnosis of Einstein syndrome, I realize now that it was unmerited. I encourage everyone to reconsider their opinion, regardless of whether one changes a vote. Mandsford 18:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Mandsford, do you have a single indication that any realm of psychiatry or medicine has even considered this syndrome? I can't find one. Reactive attachment disorder, on the other hand, may be "ridiculed, but it is acknowledged and studied. This "syndrome" hasn't even risen to the level of ridicule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree with Dhartung. An article on the book "The Einstein Syndrome" might pass but you can't get a syndrome into an encyclopaedia until other people start using it as a meaningful entity. It isn't relevant whether other experts think the author makes a good point (as alderbourne argues) they've got to choose to use that phrase in their own published writing and start classifying people with the "syndrome" in medical practice. Colin°Talk 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a syndrome that might not be well recognized by the medical community, but nevertheless is a syndrome. Wikipedia isn't paper. --Mnemnoch 05:09, 14 August 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.