Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mucoid plaque

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. Deathphoenix ʕ 05:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mucoid plaque

Unknown in the medical community, non-medical term, violates WP:OR, WP:NOT, copyvio,[1] is unencyclopedic and Wikipedia should not list all possible idiosyncrasies posing as medical condition/therapy. Or is it an advertisement?

Dr. Anderson is in the business of selling such products, as well as books and media that promote the concept.

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOR, as evidenced by the following: "The phrase, “mucoid plaque,” is a coined term that I use to describe various conditions found throughout the body" -- Dr. Richard Anderson, N.D., N.M.D [2] -- Samir धर्म 11:09, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, for obvious reasons. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 11:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Closing admin please note that this is the same person that put it up for deletion --mboverload@ 01:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, the nominator can have his say, can't he? Or, is nominating itself sufficient? Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The term clocks up a fair number of ghits, however those are almost entirely on websites selling things. Remove this as a neologism that hasn't cauhgt on. Dr Zak 11:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• DeleteDefend vigorously blocking POVAdverSpammingFraudulent editors or merge into a "health fraud (colon)" article. Tearlach's original article was good, there is some merit in having an article on a fraud like this, but unless the POV-pushing anonymous editor can be prevented from turning it into apparent support for the ridiculous and self-serving claims involved and a sales tool for quackery and charlatanry WP is a bette rencyclopaedia without it. Tearlach should be notified, having started it. Midgley 12:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Doesn't Answers.com uncriticaly copy Wikipedia content, rather than it being a copyvio?. Midgley 12:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops, had another look, and (whispering) it would seem you are right. Making it worse, because wikipedia is now the source. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 12:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge per Midgley. Into health fraud. Yikes! Kukini 12:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've changed ....Midgley 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• KEEP I have just changed it to stating that it is a health fraud in the first line. I think it is important that we dispel this myth on wikipedia. --mboverload@ 18:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per mboverload. I've no great attachment to the article (I didn't come to it until late 2005). But it is a fairly entrenched and vigorously promoted scam, with more Ghits than many other topics in Category:Quackery. Despite the hassle, I think there's more benefit in shedding light on it than sweeping it under the carpet. Tearlach 18:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• In that case we should keep it in some form. I'm bothered by the amount of effort that could involve. A version would be difficult because it is frankly not stable. I'd actually support reverting to Tearlach's original version, I don't think there is great improvement since. I do wonder if a change of title, so that this quackery is dealt with within the frame of an article on people who pay to have their bottoms washed out, what the colon actually does etc. Perhaps putting "fraud" in the title eg Mucoid plaque (health fraud) (or even Health fraud (mucoid plaque) might actually reduce the conceptual problem, and reduce the appearance of reality it gets via Google and answers.com and so on. Sorry to run on.Midgley 21:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

• The (whatever) in names is really only used to distinguish things with the same name. I'm making this up, but say Chicken Egg (hippie movement) and Chicken Egg (band) --mboverload@ 00:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• ... thus far ... I could criticise it myself in that it mixes data and classification, but WP:IS NOT an ontology or relational. And the brackets are optional. Midgley 21:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. This link alone on quackwatch would justify its notability IMO. Crum375 19:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a notable concept, whether it's reflects medical reality or not.--Pharos 23:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename per Midgley's comment above. Let's make it clear real quick that this is a fraud. --Chaser (T) 00:11, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• comment I am suspicious that user Heelop who was and is presumably from User:72.224.168.161 has a commercial interest in this. It is possible that this AFD should move on to an RFC on this user, and perhaps more generally on the defence of WP against such health frauds and editors corrupting the WP in order to advance their agenda. Midgley 09:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, having seen the changes in the past few days I still do not see the need for a separate article. The term can be discussed under health fraud, or quackery, as has been suggested by others. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 09:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, do not rename (it is not a disambiguation). Make sure that it is clear that it is a fraud, and that nobody removes such messages. -- Tangotango 07:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I check my Wikipedia watchlist obsessively so don't worry about any edit getting past me. --mboverload@ 07:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. This "condition" is mentioned every night on multiple television networks via infomercials. The people perpetrating this lie are making it up in order to make a quick buck, and consumers need to have some source of truth. Wikipedia entries rate highly in search engines, and this article may educate some otherwise ignorant consumers. Not a real medical condition, but that doesn't stop the con-men trying to push their "colon cleansing" products. I can't watch late night TV without seeing this scam. Besides, we have seperate articles on phrenology, homeopathy, and dozens of other health scams.
• Rename but keep as notoriety established. JFW | T@lk 21:21, 29 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.