Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease

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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 14:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease

Contents of page (was originally [1]) already listed on Parkinson's Disease#Toxins. This article on the other hand is blatant link-spamming for a web forum. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  11:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Begin list
    1. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. With scientific articles this would require scientific references.
    2. Wikipedia is also limited by the potential article size. It therefore can not include all relevant information, but can refer to other web sites where more information is available.
    3. Wikipedia is limited by copyright as to how much information it can make use of from other sources.
    4. The most comprehensive source of information on the toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease is on the links provided. By linking to those sites rather than copying all of the information from it, the article enables references and more detailed information for those that want it, and is not in breach of copyright.
    5. The links are not to a commercial web site. The web site does not sell anything at all. So it is plainly erroneous to describe it as SPAM.
    6. Without links to the other web site or other web sites besides that, the reader is prevented from obtaining more detailed information and all relevant scientific references. --Johnson MD 13:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: I count 12 links to the SAME website on an article whose contents are almost identical to what's already listed on Parkinson's disease. That's blatant Spamdexing in my book. Even if you're not selling anything, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for increasing your site's search engine rankings. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  13:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The main page for the disease is huge, 52K, therefore, it is reasonable that this page can exist on its own. Would everyone just get past the forum links and see the references to scientific material.Ansell 11:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:V and possibly WP:OR. Would have been an A4 in the old days. Tevildo 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Did you look at the forum pages it quotes? Ansell 11:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:V and possibly WP:OR. Suspect Johnson MD is a sockpuppet of General Tojo, and this page exists only to further promote his site. Debate of this topic has lead to semi-protection of the parkinson's disease page which means GT is unable to post there with a new account--PaulWicks 16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment
    1. The web site is not mine. So I am not Spamdexing, and until I read your link did not even know what it was.
    2. The suggestion that the information lacks verifiability is obviously a false one. The information via the links it refers to provides full references of published scientific literature. Therefore the suggestion that it fails WP:V and possibly WP:OR is plainly wrong.
    3. Toxicity is a rapidly ongoing area with entirely distinct subjects within that area - one for each toxic substance. The information and web sites for each subject will alter independently for each subject. For example, when new research becomes available concerning manganese toxicity, a different web site and references will be inevitably linked only to manganese. The links used at the outset are only what is used at the outset and will inevitably change.
    4. What is the alternative ? - no link to further information and references, or only one link for each toxin which soon becomes out of date, as a better link will become available for some of the toxins ?
    5. Is the purpose of Wikipedia providing information for those that want it, or preventing the availability of information solely due to the possibility of the alteration of search engine rankings for a site that does not even sell anything ? --Johnson MD 14:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: If your motives are genuine (we see an awful lot of Spamdexing around here, hence the paranoia) then there's no need for a separate article when you could be contributing to Parkinson's disease instead and not over-promoting a single link as an external reference. I've also just noticed that http://p4.forumforfree.com/parkinsons.html is already listed on Parkinson's disease, so regardless, your article is redundant on two counts. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  14:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Begin list
        1. The Parkinson's Disease site has been repeatedly vandalised. The toxic section has also had large parts of it randomly deleted. It has also been proposed in discussionson the Parkinson's Disease site that, as the page is well over the required size that subjects (such as symptoms and toxicity) be taken out on to other pages, so that only a brief summary can remain on the Parkinson's Disease page. This is one of the reasons for doing it here.
        2. The Parkinson's Disease Forum (the original source of the information on the toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease) is listed on the web sites. However, it is very unlikely that this in itself is going to lead to people getting information about the toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease. It is also three links away from the actaul page for toxicity. Somebody would have to go to in order : Parkinson's Disease (Wikipedia) > see the tiny link > The Parkinson's Disease Forum > Parkinson's Disease > Toxic causes.
        3. Therefore, is the purpose of Wikipedia to make information more readily available, or to make information as difficult to get to, because the arguments against inclusion solely indicate the latter. --Johnson MD 15:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
        • OK. The page should stand only if it's properly linked to and from Parkinson's disease and the link is only used once. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
          • What do you think about the current status, with one link at the bottom, the sources referenced, and a link from both Parkinson's Disease and Parkinsonism. If this page is deleted I will put the references on the main page and that would skyrocket its size, it is already at 52K. Ansell 01:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, fork. The material presently in Parkinson's disease under "toxins" should be sourced directly to academically reliable sources. Arguments by Johnson MD totally fail to address the WP:V problems, as well as WP:RS issues. JFW | T@lk 16:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
      • That page is too large to hold the extra information that this page holds. How is Vanity a deletion criteria. It is merely something that you can reform, especially when it is vanity to a site which quotes its scientific sources. Ansell 11:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Wow. I'm am now so confused. What on Earth is going on here? If you haven't noticed http://p4.forumforfree.com/parkinsons.html is the first link under External Links in Parkinson's disease. I'm not medically knowledgeable, I'm just a WP:CVU and AfD regular who spotted what initially looked like some suspicious Spamdexing. How reliable is the information on that site? [2] looks rather well referenced at first, but is it pushing opinions not commonly accepted in the wider medical community? Could you please elaborate on how it fails WP:V? Cheers,  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This website is a forum that reads more like a blog of one individual (as there is really only one individual who contributes on this forum). I haven't though fact checked all the contributions on this forum, though it probably wouldn't be too hard to verify, as it does mention some published findings. In any event, the content in this article would be strengthened with citations from the literature rather than a link to a one-man forum. Andrew73 17:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Wow. I got suckered good by Johnson MD. First time ever encountering a sock puppet = ). Thanks to PaulWicks and Andrew73 for spotting him! Hmmm...I think I need to design a new barnstar for you guys since a suitable one doesn't seem to exist. The Baker Street Irregulars barnstar for services rendered unmasking sock puppets! --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  17:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as linkspam and POV fork. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Did you look at the forum pages it quotes? Ansell 11:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, if POV could be removed. --Sunholm(talk) 22:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Rehabilitate and Keep -- see the edit I just performed? All I had to do in order to find a {{fact}} for this article is search google for "Maneb Parkinsons Entrez" and I found PubMed. Considering that the subject of the article could actually be supported and the article improved, why hide the topic? Heathhunnicutt 23:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is a section duplicated from the main article, Parkinson's disease, except with the addition of links to this editor's forum. If anything should be rehabilitated, it should be the main article, not this fork. Andrew73 13:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete this adverspam -- MrDolomite 05:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete It's UnChristian. Toxins don't cause Parkinson's Disease. God created Parkinson's Disease in order to punish us for our sins. Hallalujah, praise the Lord. --Bio Doc 14:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --WS 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
References (from talk page)

How can one scientific reference for Paraquat / Maneb on mice possibly be better than 18 scientific references on Paraquat an Maneb and a full analysis of those references ? --Physio 15:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well said! Bridgeman's website has very little besides his own contributions, as Andrew notes. What he has done is something like a literature review of his topic. However, he's gone very broad-brush in his review, attempting, for example, to say something about any toxin that produces a symptom bearing some resemblance to PD. For each toxin he cites only one article. In a literature review for a peer-reviewed journal this would not be acceptable, since it's too easy to pick and choose among the literature for work that supports a particular viewpoint. Bridgeman has a particular and not widely shared view of PD pathology, and he has selected his articles to support that viewpoint. Since his invention, dopavite, is based upon that viewpoint, that's expected. His website looks impressive to a layman, but it's shallow and very wide. He's really not critically reviewed any of the articles, either, as one would expect in a solid literature review, but has mostly clipped and pasted. His expertise is very open to question in my mind, especially given his hyperbolic claims. --Dan 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


  • Delete: per nom, also: the "content" on the site linked seems to just regurgitate either copyrighted articles or material already on Wikipedia. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not even particuarly thorough. Rotenone was thought to be causative on the basis of an animal study involving megadoses which induced parkinson-like symptoms and also lewy body pathology. However the family on whom the human model was based were subsequently shown not to have been poisoned with an organophsophate but what was in fact liquid halperidol. I know he likes to make out that we're all idiots but it's more of a case of not wanting to waste my time talking with a troll.--PaulWicks 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


1. It is primarily meant to enable people to keep up to date with Parkinson's Disease. It is by far the best means of doing that world wide. It is a news source rather than a Forum. It uses the word Forum, but that is solely to enable follow ups on any particular item. It is not meant as a parky social club which is what most PD Forums are. Virtually all of it are other people's work. I don't comment unless asked to because I don't believe in imposing my views on it. Why should I slant what is contained in published abstracts. For every study included, I read twenty times more. It all doesn't constitute 1% of what I know.

2. I have summarised all relevant work on toxicity- some absolutely convincing, some, with the use of reasoning, strongly implying. My work is not based on toxicity at all. I doubt if toxicity plus genetics plus trauma explain 10% of cases of Parkinson's Disease.

3. Neither you nor anyone else here has put up even one sientific arguement that opposes what I have written. You're not up to it. I see conclusions, but a complete lack of facts in support of what you've written. I'd run sientific rings around you because you have such a novices knowledge of the subject.

4. Poor Wimpy. Fresh out of college yet he thinks he knows the subject. Delusion is a terrible thing. See you soon Wimpy.

--General Tojo 4 17:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you a GCSE / A-level science teacher? --PaulWicks 17:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Fails WP:V and WP:OR and is formatted horribly. WP:NOT a free web host. And I know this isn't a reason, but Tojo's boldface comments are extremely irritating. — getcrunk what?! 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Did you look at the forum pages it quotes? (Neurology means a peer-reviewed scientific publication) Ansell 11:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge to Parkinson's Disease the forum lists its sources so it is not original research, true, the links should be to the actual publications but that is not a reason to delete. Ansell 11:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I have reformatted the page so that it is cites all its sources. Still believe that the main article is too large for the information and that on its own makes this information worthy of a page, especially the verbose lists of referenes, which I will go through gradually and convert to {{cite journal}} format. Ansell 12:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. See WP:OR as an original synthesis of ideas. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
    • So a rewrite again using the references would not be original synthesis? Have you checked the references to make sure the current versions are original syntheses and not actually based objectively on the research? Ansell 01:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Not being a doctor, I'm just not sure how reputable the selection of references are on this page due to General's Tojo's suspected motives. See WP:ANI#General_Tojo. If this subject is indeed going to be forked off Parkinson's, then it's going to require semi-protection too. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  04:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Strong Delete -- "Weak" because the article I see seems well documented with footnotes at the bottom. I see only one external link; since it was so controversial, I deleted it. "Delete" because:
    • I have no way of checking the paper documents cited in the footnotes and I probably wouldn't understand them if I did.
    • I normally assume good faith edits. Given the history I'm just learning about, plus the recent rude stuff from General Tojo 4, I am unsure good faith can be assured here
If link-spamming is the issue and the article is kept, I suggest keeping the external link deleted and protecting the page. I am sure if Johnson MD is legitimate, he won't object to this.
If this article's saga gets any weirder or the supporters of this article misbehave, my vote would swing to a "strong delete". Collectively, we editors owe Wikipedia readers reliability even if we may sometimes miss the mark on style, comprehensiveness, etc. That means we can't accept any material we don't think has been proffered in good faith. That's especially true of highly technical medical material.
From painful, close observation of someone dying of Parkinson's, I can say this is a horrible disease. Manipulating any information associated with it in the pursuit of spamdexing -- well, that's just downright despicable. I hope that's not what's going on here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 5:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Upgraded to "Strong Delete" -- "Strong" because of the additional bad faith edits made by the article's supporter(s) since I voted 13 hours ago. If we can't trust the article's editor(s) and supporter(s), then the article is unreliable. Additionally, the article's backer(s) have insisted on keeping their vanity link in place, claiming it's vital to the article as a source, yet it's not a peer-reviewed source. Taken together, these two behaviors are just so revealing. I am unfamiliar with sock-puppet sanctions and bans but I think administrators would be justified to throw the book at these people. --A. B. 19:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
What exactly have I as a supporter of the article, due simply to the overcrowding on the main page, done to deserve to have "the book thrown at me". Assume good faith in established editors at least. And btw, I left the link in one place as a compromise, not endorsing it, considering the debate surrounding it. External links do not come under the Verifiability policy, thats just for References, however, if the site is a valuable external summary of the topic it could be relevant. Fully protecting the page has simply made me unable to improve it, leaving this debate from now on as a sham as I cannot improve on my initial referencing efforts. Could someone change the full protection to semi-protection so I can actually put the references on? And if this article is deleted the admin should ensure that the references are kept on the main page, for all the bloat that this will make on the page I think it is worth it given the reputations of the journals being used. Ansell 03:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm missing something here, Ansell. Is your comment above directed at me? If so, I was referring to bad faith edits by 88.106.234.217, Floriana, 88.106.217.113, 88.106.183.224 and MedicalBall. I'm not alleging you made any bad faith edits -- what edits of yours did you think I was referring to?
--A. B. 04:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I am a little confused about your comment still. You seemed to imply in your vote that supporters of the article, regardless of their efforts should be dealt with by administrators. I know that there were a string of edits made by the sockpuppets in question, however, I am behind the scenes trying to improve the article due to my firm belief that the content would bloat the main article, and forking is legitimate because of this. I am hampered in this by the recent full protection put on the article, something which I do not approve of but cannot find a quote to back up my belief that AfD articles should be free to be improved by participators in the debate. Sorry for confusing your comment with something against my edits. Ansell 04:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to address your concerns. Your efforts to improve the article are commendable and I will take your word for it that there needs to be a separate article. I am reluctant to change my "delete" recommendation, however, if that could lead the forces of sockpuppetry somehow tainting the reliability of an article (medical articles in particular). I just don't know enough about protection, etc. to know how to reconcile your intentions with my concerns; maybe someone more knowledgeable does.
--A. B. 05:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Referenced or not, this is still original research. Compare the current entry on Rotenone with what I wrote on the PD page (before Ansell deleted it).
"Rotenone is an insecticide that is known to cause Parkinson's Disease. Insecticides are also known to affect well water. Rotenone is commonly used in powdered form to treat parasitic mites on chickens and other fowl, and so can be found in poultry. Rotenone is produced by extraction from the roots, seeds, and leaves of certain tropical legumes. Rotenone inhibits tyrosine hydroxylation, which is essential for the formation of dopamine. So Rotenone causes Parkinson's Disease by lowering dopamine levels.[12]"
vs.
"Rotenone is an insecticide, which when given intavenously to mice has been demonstrated to cause a model of Parkinson's disease. Rotenone toxicity is caused by complex I inhibition, depletion of cellular ATP, and oxidative damage. These processes cause neuronal loss in midbrain dopaminergic neurons, leading to depletion of dopamine in the brain.[17]"
I wrote that after coming from a case presentation about the suspected human cases of Rotenone which were widely reported. The presentation was from one of the Neurologists who examined the family and was tasked with looking for gene markers for them. The bottom line is that there have been no human cases of PD caused by Rotenone. So a statment like "Rotenone causes Parkinson's Disease" is misleading.
As for references, I think if you can't read the original references then you have to take it on faith that what was said in the article is what is reported. Based on the behaviour of General Tojo so far I have a big problem with putting any faith in him. Whilst there are peer-reviewed papers knocking about on these toxins the evidence is nowhere near strong enough to be making the kind of statements listed here. I will endeavour to get some of my lab-based colleagues to have a go at this article, but the disruption GT has caused so far is exactly the kind of thing that puts busy academics off putting Wikipedia in the first place. A compromise solution would be to keep the page here, keep the toxins off of the main PD page, but to protect the page, and go and round up some biochemists to start it off from scratch. Does that sound any better?--PaulWicks 08:31, 7 July 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.