Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hickam's dictum

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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hickam's dictum

Non-notable, 9 hits on google, 1 repeat, 1 non-english Crossmr 06:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This has been cited in the Journal of Internal Medicine, the Journal of Neuro-Opthamology and the New England Journal of Medicine. Who cares how many hits it has on google?--Pharos 06:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - it's an important piece of medical doctrine, even if it is a little tongue-in-cheek. - Richardcavell 06:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. -- Scientizzle 06:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep --Terence Ong 13:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This topic is notable, not because of its level of popularity on the web, but because of its intimate connection as a polarity or balancing principle to a topic of central importance in diagnostic medicine. ...Kenosis 14:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: The main reason that search results within Google do not turn up very significantly more "hits" is that most of the medical literature on the web is available only through an https (secure protocol) or otherwise requires log-in with a password to access relevant articles. This is typical of professional medical literature on the web. Indeed the New England Journal of Medicine search result appears to have come up only because of a meta-tag embedded in that particular page. The relevant aritlce itself is not available without payment of a subscription fee and logging into the secured portion of their database... Kenosis 15:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

So are you saying that if I went up to any doctor and asked them what Hickam's Dictum was a notable percentage of doctors should be able to tell me what it is? Notability has nothing to do with what it is, as say a balancing point for Occam's Razor. Notability would have to do in this case then, how notable it is within the medical community. How many people are at least familiar with what it is. While it may have been cited in three different journals, unless its actually notable inside the medical community it falls under only being notable to a small group, and according to wikipedia that qualifies as non-notable. As it is, from the google search its quite obvious the public at large likely has no idea what Hickam's Dictum is. I haven't seen the citations from the three journals, so I can't tell if they're major or minor citations, how often it was cited, and what the context for the citation was. --Crossmr 17:46, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Reply: I am asserting that physicians as a class are increasingly aware of this term in professional discourse with one another. Yes, a very significant number of physicians will have heard of this principle today, and a competent physician will tend to immediately understand its significance in diagnostic methodology. The original statement, a combination of tongue-in-cheek with extreme seriousness, appears to be "People can have as many diseases as they damn-well please." It serves as a counterbalance to the standard concepts of Occam's razor and "Osler's rule" (commonly stated as "One disease to a patient", named after the late 19th Century physician William Osler)... Kenosis 19:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

That's fine then. All I was looking for was notability. When I asked for a source of notability on the article page, you removed the prod and told me to go through the deletion process which I did. Having never heard of this and with no real information or sign of notability resulting from google, it wouldn't be the first time someone tried to push a theory on here that wans't notable. --Crossmr 21:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just felt the template was too hasty. I appreciate your efforts at double-checking things. Take care. ...Kenosis 22:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I often heard this sentiment expressed by seasoned practitioners when I was learning the ropes of statistical consulting in medical research settings. Naturally I was disillusioned at first to find out how practically useless Ockham's razor and the often allied Bayes' rule were in actual practice, but it was an illusion well dissed. But I doubt if Google hits are a good test of notability, as I don't remember hearing the many variants of this maxim under this exact name. Jon Awbrey 05:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually then, thats a vote against notability. Its not a particular abstract theory. If people aren't referring to it by name and actually calling it that, then its not notable. --Crossmr 06:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In fact Occam's razor and an extreme version called Osler's Rule (often casually stated as "one disease to a patient") are standard in the medical lexicon of the 20th Century. Occam's razor is an oft misunderstood principle, because it does not demand that every diagnosis be reduced to a single disease involving the simplest possible qualities and quantities. Rather, it demands all possible diagnoses (hypotheses) that explain all the symptoms be considered, shaving away any unnecessary elements in the hypothesis — which may well still leave multiple possible diagnoses remaining under consideration while investigating further. It is a conceptual razor, not a hatchet; but because of the extreme variants such as Osler's rule and other misunderstandings of the principle, counterbalancing principles such as Hickam's dictum have become necessary to keep excessive "reductionism" in check. The balance being: "As simple as possible (in keeping with all of the complexities of the situation), but no simpler than necessary to solve the problems". ... Kenosis 15:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

JA: I said only that "I don't remember hearing [it] under this exact name", and though that may speak only to my memory, cog.sci folks can tell you that people in general are better at remembering the gist of information content than they are remembering the incidentals of a particular syntactic utterance. Plus, I know all sorts of heuristics and theorems and stuff that have different names in engineering or psychology than they do in mathematics. And then, of course, others have already testified to the eponymous Dr. Hickam being immortalized in reputable sources. If you review the pages on William of Ockham and Ockham's razor, you will note that it is customary practice in this area to attribute a historical accumulation of interpretations, and even the sediment of subsequent syntax to the legendary harbinger of a distinctive idea, even when these glosses and not a small measure of pure shine have yet to be found among his or her works, but are only asserted to share its spirit. Funny though, I do remember the damn well part, and will insist on its being restored for the sake of idiomatic accuracy. Jon Awbrey 11:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm a medical student and I've come across this one twice, both from senior medical staff (although I always thought it was Iccam :-) see the Occam's Razor page history ;) ) Gergprotect 19:18, 26 May 2006 (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.