Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habba 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. Bduke (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Habba Syndrome

Habba Syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails Wikipedia:Notability and seems promotional. Only one reference in the entire medical literature: Habba SF (August 2000). "Chronic diarrhea: identifying a new syndrome". Am. J. Gastroenterol. 95 (8): 2140–1. PMID 10950089. 

Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep – I am going to error on the side of caution here. If it is indeed a legitimate Syndrome that in its own right makes it suitable for inclusion here at Wikipedia. However, the contention by some experts in the the medical community, as listed here, [1] is that this is not a “New Syndrome” at all. Until that is sorted out, I would like to see the article stay. ShoesssS Talk 18:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete – Seems like there is only one reference by one author who named the (debatable) syndrome after himself. The article reads entirely like self-promotion, and is not up to Wikipedia's quality guidelines. Delete, unless further references or corroboration by other researchers or medical professionals can be provided. The brief debate linked to by ShoesssS occurred in 2001, and there are no signs of notability since then. — λ (talk) 19:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete since the only citations are people objecting to the syndrome, it is fair to say that the existence of it is not recognized in the medical community. It would take pretty strong evidence to persuade me of the notability of a symptom, or method, or equation, or anything else that the inventor or describer named after himself. We don't have to sort it out. If the GI specialists sort it out and adopt this as a standard name for something distinctive, then and only then it would be appropriate for an article. At this point, just a proposed and quite unlikely neologism. DGG (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Well, if DGG thinks it should be deleted, then what am I as a hardcore deletionist to say? :) One citation just doesn't do it for a standalone article. It may be worth mentioning in our article on diarrhea or malabsorption, but I don't see the notability for a standalone. And it will be a permastub, since there are no more reliable sources. If someone besides Habba publishes on Habba syndrome, then let's re-create it. BTW, eponyms (at least novel ones) are pretty strongly deprecated in medicine these days, so I'd not be surprised to see this syndrome renamed. MastCell Talk 20:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete seems to be a proposal by one physician that is not widely accepted, therefore not currently encyclopedic per se (gosh, I can't believe I just used that adjective but I believe it applies here..) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Have no access to Habba's original description, but seems to be of unestablished nosology, existence has been contradicted, and our present page bizarrely claims that cholecystectomy does not alter the disease process (despite claims that it is a dysfunctional gall bladder that causes the symptoms to begin with). Agree with MastCell that the article can always be recreated when it is more established. JFW | T@lk 06:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources. [2] Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:10, 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.