Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in medicine 2

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 delete. Arguments for deletion appear to be stronger than those for keeping. --Coredesat 04:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsolved problems in medicine

Unsolved problems in medicine (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Medicine is full of unsolved problems. Some are major, e.g. how to cure cancer, and some are minor, such as the optimum treatment (phenol or not) for recurrent ingrown toenails. This list does not define where minor problems stop and major ones start. This would be arbitrary. Furthermore, some problems are regarded as solved by some and unsolved by others, opening this up to POV bias. A previous AFD (Aug 06) was contentious, but I feel this list should go. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom & to badly misquote the former US defense secretary: "there are unsolved problems we don't even know are problems that need to be solved." Carlossuarez46 22:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as any condition that still exists could be considered an "unsolved problem in medicine" by the loosest of terms. Someguy1221 00:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment There are seven other articles of the same sort; some with less content that the medicine one (e.g. biology); are we absolutely confident that the article could not be improved to the standard of, say, Unsolved problems in physics? Unless we are, this shouldn't be deleted. Also, it seems to me the reason given for deletion is rather weak: practically every article on Wikipedia has to contend with the problem of what is major (i.e. worth of being in an encyclopaedia article) and what isn't, the fact that an arbitary line has to be drawn somewhere doesn't mean the page should be deleted. Most articles are "open... to POV bias" as well; but then that's why we have WP:NPOV. -- Simxp 01:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. In both mathematics and physics, all "unsolved problems" can be in some way traced back to the inability of existing theories to explain phenomena, or provide a feasible mechanism to accomplish something, as well as some undeniably famous conjectures or observances for which there is no explanation or proof. These two I will consider good examples of "unsolved problems" pages. For medical problems, however, I personally don't see a way to compile a list that would be anything but completely arbitrary. If someone can give some good criteria, please do. This page could also be considered largely redundant to the biology analog, which is going through its own issues. And so, beyond matters of OR or POV, if this is not but an arbitrary list, then it fails WP:NOT, for Wikipedia is not an arbitrary collection of information. Someguy1221 03:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. Ezratrumpet 03:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, though it might be possible to compile an objective article on the basis of other authoritative lists. I know its not enough of a reason, but articles like this are useful for beginners or browsing. DGG 07:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This list is similar to the list of unsolved problems in biology (currently being nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in biology (2nd nomination)) in that it lacks precise criteria for what belongs on the list and what not. I expect from everybody who votes to keep this list a proposal for such criteria. Cacycle 12:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --David Iberri (talk) 18:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. As many have noted, a set of criteria for this type of article is very difficult to establish. Yes, there are lots of unsolved questions in medicine - and there are many partially-solved ones, too. And some significant and valid disagreement in the literature about what falls in which category. "Unsolved problems in <insert basic science of your choice>" entries at least have a chance of being reasonable articles. Some of these articles ("..in physics") are moderately straightforward, while others ("...in biology") are much harder: the "...in medicine" entry is much more difficult to even define properly as is likely to degenerate into a series of POV wars due to its very nature while failing to be comprehensive enough to be worthwhile. -- MarcoTolo 00:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep - This is a good start for a legitimate topic. Perhaps the title should be Major problems in medicine instead of "unsolved" problems, but other than this this IMO is an article in need of attention ad not deletion. --EMS | Talk 03:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - article as it stands is an unstructured series of poorly phrased series of perceived disgruntlements with modern conventional medicine. Many of entries are more speculative rather than indicating true areas needing, and undergoing, serious research. The article on problems in physics is a fine article and very much as a science TV program, or science text book might structure the recognisied task-list. As it stands, the current Unsolved_problems_in_medicine contents need be dumped. A restart, along the lines of the physics example, might avoid problems as set out in above comments. Perhaps structure under specialities or systemic systems, hence under cardiology one might have "the optimum point of intervening with statins", or "how much of cardioprotective effect of statins is from the absolute lowering of cholesterol levels and how much from their possible anti-inflammatory effects on endothelium". Likewise under oncology, not will there be one cure for all cancers, but perhaps "what role might generalised gene therapy have over conventional chemotherapy drugs" or "how much of genetic susceptability to diseases can or should be screened for" (as very sad if our ability predict disease exceeds our ability to treat). David Ruben ^Talk 19:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Almost all problems in medicine are partly solved, some to greater or lesser degrees. Whether something is unsolved enough to belong on this list is inherently POV. ike9898 01:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Medicine is a good area for a list like this, although, of course, it is a moving target. First, issues like frequency and human harm impacted by a problem can be used to determine notability. Second, medicine is a relatively well organized profession with a well known series of journals for the profession as a whole and for individual specialties, that make identifying the authority of an reference easier. Medicine also has a Nobel prize to provide exemplars of previously notable unsolved problems that have since been solved. As I've noted in chemistry and biology, almost all problems are partially solved -- so what? Fermat's Theorem was partially solved for hundreds of years (as we knew it was true in a large class of cases) but it was still a great unsolved problem in mathematics. Human medicine is also a more discrete field than say biology or chemistry -- there are a smaller number of potential issues of note, there are also a great number of completely solved problems and boundaries between medicine and non-medicine are particularly clear. I'll restate here that the real question is what are the major issues facing contemporary medical researchers right now. The fact that some problems are more notable than others is an issue with every class of wikipedia article from biography, to books, to ideas, to organizations -- the fact that judgment is required does not mean that distinctions can't be made indeed the examples given of notable and non-notable topics (hangnails v. cancer) show how intuitively clear many case can be. Ohwilleke 21:50, 31 May 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.