Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgellons Research Foundation
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 Thatcher makes a good point, let's fix the fight at morgellons first and then revisit this. Thanks to all for their input. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Morgellons Research Foundation
This was split out form morgellons because the arguments over this group's internal schisms were distracting that article. But the two subjects are inextricably linked; this foundation is pretty much the sole source for the existence of the supposed disease, which is essentially rejected by the medical establishment. As written, it begs the question of the legitimacy of morgellons, and is also a WP:BLP nightmare since none of the individuals involved are independently notable enough to receive any attention outside of this small area. I think it should be redirected, and rewritten in the process to remove the BLP concerns, and that is effectively a deletion so I'm bringing it here. Guy (Help!) 11:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Guy's summary is basically accurate and explains why I split the article in the first place. There was factional fighting and edit warring at Morgellons between believers and skeptics, and there was tendency on the part of the skeptics to want to include negative information about the Foundation and the people associated with it as a way of disparaging the disease. The Foundation has received press coverage in multiple independent sources, mostly but not entirely focused on its role in promoting awareness of the condition. By splitting the topics the other editors and I were able to work out a compromise at Morgellons where that article focuses on the medical community's view of the condition, putting the criticism of the Foundation elsewhere. Merging the MRF back to the Morgellons article risks returning to the strategy of saying the disease is unbelievable because the people who promote it are unbelievable, rather than saying the disease is controversial and here are the medical arguments on both sides. Bearing those things in mind, if Guy wants to sit on this article for a few weeks he's welcome to try, but doing a merge and delete and then walking away is unlikely to end happily. Thatcher131 12:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- delete not a notable organisation independent of Morgellons, and will rarely be mentioned (if ever) in any sources apart from in connection with Morgellons, for which there is an article.Merkinsmum 12:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It meets verfiable via the post-gazette link. The notability is the question. Is there something that makes this foundation notable? spryde | talk 13:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Being the subject of prime-time reports on CNN, ABC, and NBC (and, yes, the MRF or people in it appear in all of the reports, which is not surprising since evidently all of the reports were produced as a result of the MRF actively campaigning FOR exposure; they were not just passing references that appeared while discussing Morgellons) would certainly seem to qualify as notable, and an organization with some 10,000 supporting members is certainly large enough to be notable, even without the media attention. While WP does not base decisions on precedent, it is true that a very similar and equally notable organization, the International Lyme and Associated Disease Society (ILADS) is mentioned numerous times in the WP articles about Lyme and the "Lyme Controversy" and yet does not have its own entry here. Dyanega 18:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- delete and move a couple of sentences about the organisation's recent problems back into the main article. The lead is largely taken up with a substantial quote from the orgs website, which isn't what leads are for and is practically an advert. The Press coverage section duplicates material from the main article. The conflict section contains way too much detail for what is utterly irrelevant in an encyclopaedia. Only one source is independent (the newspaper) and is not always used appropriately. For example, the collection amounts come from an interview with Ms. Leitao, who is not herself a reliable/independent source. Therefore this section is largely built on text given out by those involved in the squabble. As Guy says, there are significant BLP concerns here. I appreciate Thatcher131's concerns but don't see how the very little text that would go back could upset the main article much. It seems the main justification for the creation/existence of the article is in order to resolve an internal dispute between WP editors, which is a poor reason. Colin°Talk 13:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- comment It's not got any BLP problems at the moment, because it doesn't tell us what the conflict was about at all, apart from saying donations started at the time and different factions gave different explanation for it. as such, it's completely uninformative and doesn't need it's own article if we don't feel comfortable discussing each faction's claims about the other. Just needs a sentence or two in the main article.Merkinsmum 16:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
- comment - Rewrite may be a good idea, and a merge not, per Thatcher131. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 18:08, 9 November 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.
