Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mucoid plaque (second nomination)

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mucoid plaque (second nomination)

Mucoid plaque (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Fails WP:FRINGE. This condition has never been described in any medical journal or textbook and is unrecognized by the medical community. It is a neologism invented by a person who happens to sell products to "cleanse" the "mucoid plaque". Google returns only promotional websites selling "plaque cleansing" products. Per WP:FRINGE, there are no independent sources establishing notability of this fringe topic. In the prior AfD, the article was kept to serve as an example of a "health fraud", but has turned into a vehicle for POV pushing which has led to a block for disruption. But the bottom line is that it fails notability guidelines. MastCell 01:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete: since I nominated this advertisement the first time it has turned into a soapbox for a scam posing as medical therapy. Just to be sure violates WP:SPAM, WP:NOR, WP:RS, need I continue? Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 01:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Strikes me as a useful source of objective information for those poor gullible individuals who might be taken by scamsters. On the other hand I can see where the article might be hijacked by those same scamsters. So put me down as firmly undecided. Raymond Arritt 02:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Changed to Keep in light of later discussion. It's on my watchlist. Raymond Arritt 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Not worthy of being noted. --Parker007 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I agree that the article in its original form violated both WP:SOAP, WP:FRINGE, and WP:SPAM. The article in its current form, however, is well sourced and informative in the line of Advance fee fraud. Rather than deletion, I think this page simply requires either protection or constant survellience to stay in line with WP:V and WP:NPOV. Djma12 02:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think this sounds good in theory and was the basis for the Keep decision in the prior AfD. But in practice, defending the article against single-purpose accounts dedicated to promoting such a scam is a major time and effort sinkhole. If it falls off the radar, the article will turn into a misleading promotion that will be scraped onto answers.com etc. and propagated. MastCell 04:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 03:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete regrettably. Ideally I think it should stay as a source of information on a scam, as Raymond Arritt and Djma12 say. But it has fallen into a Wikipedia loophole: notable through advertising publicity, but with little specific published refutal. It's demonstrably false through simple biology - yet, as its promoter here well knows, with few published criticisms WP:NOR and WP:SYNT stop anyone properly explaining that biology. So, unless anyone can show a way around this, delete. Tearlach 03:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Changed vote to Keep in light of discussion. Tearlach 22:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Well said. MastCell 04:17, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep an monitor per Djma12. Reasonably well-sourced; a good place for someone doing a web search on the topic to discover for themselves that it's pseudoscience. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, and I too am going on WP:FRINGE here, if only for lack of good references. --Dennisthe2 03:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The arguments as later make good points. Keep, with a stipulation that it be protected in the event of continued means of spamming. --Dennisthe2 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep and monitor per Djma12 and Ohnoitsjamie. Being a frequent target for vandalism is never a reason for deletion. Otherwise, we'd have no articles on any topic relating to the Iraq War or Israel-Palestine. The article is about a scam, but the scam itself is notable given the multiple references. -- Black Falcon 05:18, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks to be notable psuedo-science. Problem editors should get a page block and the article left under semi-protection for a bit. - WeniWidiWiki 06:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per User:Tearlach and it's already mirrored on Answers.com [1].--Dakota 09:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep per Weni and Falcon... But it needs significant cleanup and maybe a little bit more obvious of a caveat that it's pseudo-science/scam. // 3R1C 15:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Djma12, Raymond Arritt, Ohnoitsjamie and others. Close monitor and warnings to user per 3R1C's vote. D Mac Con Uladh 15:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as a notable fraud per everyone above, and figure out some way of refuting the claims using published sources. There's got to be something reliable out there which talks about how silly of an idea this is. If all else fails, WP:IAR and do what you can. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep there appear to be reliable sources for this being a fraud, and the fraud is undoubtedly widespread. Past vandalism is not a reason for deletion, tiresome though it is. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: The problem with this kind of article is there is no reliable source refuting it. There are only reliable sources not naming it, which is not the same! Stating the concept is not accepted within the medical community is correct, but proving it by showing it is not mentioned in medical literature borders on OR. Believe you me I have looked but can't find an article or medical organisation speaking out against this and calling it a fraud. Seems like a major problem. Second, the last AfD had editors promising to keep an eye on this article. Nevertheless they are not around. Our little friend promoting this stuff is, which is evidenced by the fact that I had a recent encounter with him resulting in his block. Not sure what will happen 4 months from now when everybody has forgotten this and Mr PR steps in to remove the caveats from the page. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 00:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agreed - it's like writing an article about how lemon juice is the cause of cancer. There are no reliable sources refuting such a claim, because it's just not notable enough. I think this fits in the same non-notable category. But obviously, others disagree. MastCell 03:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. All contributors please keep in mind that the point of this AFD discussion is not whether or not mucoid plaque is a scam or pseudoscience, but rather whether or not it is a notable and verifiable scam. Wikipedia has plenty of articles on scams and pseudoscience. All we have to determine is if the subject is verifiable via reliable sources and is reasonably well-known. ●DanMS • Talk 02:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agreed. Obviously, I think it fails notability per WP:FRINGE, but sounds like many others disagree. MastCell 03:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, as an article describing it as an urban myth. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Neologism. But also; I don't see revealing fraud and describing urban myths as natural functions of an encyclopedia. I think more suitable in glossy magazines. Amarone 23:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If kept, is protection and/or surveillance realistic, or will the article again be edited? I don't trust this option. As MastCell wrote 20 February 2007, it sounds good in theory, but difficult in practice; "If it falls off the radar, the article will turn into a misleading promotion that will be scraped onto answers.com etc. and propagated." Amarone 23:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since it looks at least somewhat likely the article will be kept, I've gone through and edited it pretty comprehensively, along the lines discussed here. It's on my watchlist. But I'm only human and not on Wikipedia all the time - so if you feel the article should be kept and watched closely to prevent it from becoming an advertising vehicle, then could I ask that you-all add the article to your watchlist as well? It doesn't get edited very often, and it would be worth having a few sets of eyes on it, since it slipped under the radar this past time. Thanks. MastCell 18:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Done. Raymond Arritt 18:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
  • It's on my watchlist now too. Djma12 19:20, 24 February 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.