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. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adiposopathy[edit]

This topic lacks notarity.

Adiposopathy is based on the work of one research scientist who it seems is trying to replace metabolic syndrome and obesity with his own term.

It doesn't appear in a spell check.
It is not recognized by Uptodate.
A google search find 1,630 hits for adiposopathy well there are 33,600,000 for obesity and 22,700,000 for overweight.
A pubmed search find 8 articles for adiposopathy well there are 112280 for obesity and 90747 for overweight.
The diagnostic criteria are the same as those for obesity / metabolic syndrome

--Doc James (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I originally saw this page as verifiable but a google search since has shown me otherwise. If PubMed doesn't find it, it's not a real condition in my opinion. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 8 Pubmed hits and 102 Google scholar hits show more than enough notability. The fact that "obesity" has millions of hits is no surprise, because it is an everyday word. The real question is whether the two words are truly synonymous. If that can be shown, then the articles can be merged, but there is no reason for deletion. --Itub (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 8 PubMed hits and 102 Google scholar hits are essentially from one author, Bays HG, trying to form a new term that is already covered by obesity and metabolic syndrome. The talk page discussion can be found here all the way to the bottom. Several experienced editors here are skeptical of this terms notability. Essentially, the article is trying to describe "sick fat" as different to "healthy fat" but it makes no claims of how to do so. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 12:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

77 of the scholar hits are not authored by Bays, but by people citing Bays or using the term themselves. --Itub (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One of my biggest concerns with adiposopathy is how it is defined. When I first came to this page it was full of passages that emphasized that BMI was a poor measure of obesity risk and that being "fat" is fine as long as you have "healthy" fat rather then "sick" fat. So I looked and worked on this page until I arrived at the part that outlined the definition of adiposopathy. And the diagnostic criteria are no different then those of metabolic syndrome / obesity. No mention is made in the definition of how to determine if fat is health or sick.

Major criteria

Elevated waist circumference or BMI
Onset or worsening of high blood sugar with weight gain
Onset or worsening of high blood pressure with weight gain
Onset or worsening of dyslipidemia with weight gain

I have added one line to the article on obesity which sums this page. Adiposopathy refers to dysfunction of fat tissue. Doc James (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neologism by single researcher. Not widely accepted, not necessarily a useful concept unless so identified by reputable secondary sources. JFW | T@lk 22:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn neologism RogueNinja_talk 23:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is tantamount to original research, despite the "references". Even the creator of the article admits that there are currently no diagnostic criteria. ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since when do we have deletion criteria such as "no diagnostic criteria", "not a useful concept", and "same as..."? (The latter one can be a criterion for merging.) We are not here to evaluate the scientific value of this neologism. We only have to evaluate whether it is notable enough for inclusion. The only valid reason I see for deletion is "non-notable neologism". I would agree if the author were a crackpot that no one bothered citing or if no one else bothered using his recently coined term. Yet I've shown 77 third-party Google scholar hits that show that he has been cited and that others have used the term. Some may say 77 is not such a large number, but I think it's pretty significant for such a recent term, and while Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it does attempt to be as up-to-date as possible. --Itub (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Original research is clearly a valid reason to delete. My comment about "no diagnostic criteria" was in relation to OR, ie that the lack of diagnostic is evidence (albeit not conclusive) that the article is an extension of the creator's OR. – ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research is not a reason for deletion, but for cleanup. If the Wikipedia article has original research (in the Wikipedia sense of the word), it can be fixed by trimming. But anything that has been published in a journal is not original research from the Wikipedia point of view. Sure, it is original in the more general sense, because that's what journals are for! --Itub (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. At this point, still a non-notable neologism with no serious acceptance in the literature and no clearcut definition; and there do seem to me to be original research issues here. There are no papers yet backing up Bays and his ideas, and the term is not yet being taken up seriously in the literature. Wikipedia is not a venue for the cutting edge. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete - I think there is indeed a gray area at this point. I think a paragraph summarizing this article's possible differences could be merged into the obesity article. However, the reason why I said "or Delete" was because of the original research. It is undeniable that the author said there is no diagnostic criteria yet. I'll also cite WP:CRYSTAL on a fine line due to the fact that since this term is not yet widely accepted, it is a n.n. neologism, and as stated by Orangemike, we cannot start the acceptance trend here at Wikipedia. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 08:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.