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, but renaming is advisable. bd2412 T 23:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of questionable diseases[edit]

List of questionable diseases (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not work and cannot work. Despite being around for a long time (>3 years) with many edits, it remains a mess. It fails WP:OCAT. It lumps together a heterogeneous mix of conditions – from urban myths with zero claimed sufferers (until recently it included Fan death) to little believed delusional conditions (Morgellons) to popular ideas in alternative medicine (Vertebral subluxation) to culturally specific conditions (Heavy legs) to conditions with considerable recognition by orthodox medicine (Non-coeliac gluten sensitivity) – in a misleading manner. These are not similar. (And it omits vast numbers of equally valid candidates.) Listing Morgellons next to Non-coeliac gluten sensitivity helps no-one understand either. There is no solution to this because "questionable" is a hopelessly broad word. It is not encyclopaedic.

Alternative suggested names, like "contested", "fake" or "disputed diseases" will not solve these problems.

Imagine an article called "List of questionable politicians" that lumped together genocidal dictators with unpopular democrats with a politician guilty of a traffic offence. We would not allow such an article. It would clearly be hopeless. Our treatment of medical articles should be just as rigorous: WP:MEDRS is just as important as WP:BLP, and every or nearly every entry here fails WP:MEDRS.

WP:TNT is needed. Bondegezou (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 17:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: While clearly nonsense, deaths do appear to be attributed to fans (unless the warning from the Korean Consumer Protection Board is fake). And while "popular", the evidence for vertebral subluxations is just as nonexistent. If there are "vast numbers of equally valid candidates", then start adding them. If non-coeliac gluten sensitivity now has enough evidence to not accurately be described as "questionable", remove it. And this is a list, not a category, so it's not apparent how WP:OCAT would apply. --tronvillain (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not the vertebral subluxation has any evidence, or that non-coeliac gluten sensitivity is without controversy. My point is that it is misleading to lump them together under such a broad term. They are both, in some sense, "questionable". Both are undoubtedly questioned. But they are very different. The way in which they are questionable is very different. Putting them in the same list gives a wrong impression about both. No amount of fixing can solve this. It is a structural problem. I meant that WP:OCAT applies by analogy: we don't want overly general lists any more than overly general categories. By apologies for not explaining myself there. Bondegezou (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Some seemingly reliable sources have articles discussing fake and questioned diseases, now and in the past. I hope some with medical training and access to medical journals behind paywall will provide refs which satisfy medres, since it applies to this article. This is an important and encyclopedic topic. [1], [2]. The assertion by the nominator that the article is incomplete is a reason to edit it, but not to delete it. The comparison to "Questionable politicians" is unconvincing and off-point. Edison (talk) 18:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those sources fail WP:MEDRS. There are undoubtedly dodgy diagnoses of various sorts. Wikipedia covers many of these very well. I'm all for Wikipedia discussing such topics. But not this way. We cannot lump apples, oranges and starfruits together. Bondegezou (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we CAN lump three fruits into a category "Fruits" just as we can have an article covering diseases which are popular but which may lack a scientific basis. Edison (talk) 18:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not "an article covering diseases which are popular but which may lack a scientific basis". It is a list of "questionable" diseases. The current list includes that which have a scientific basis; and also that which is not remotely popular. Because you cannot come up with an unambiguous and objective definition of "questionable". Bondegezou (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Better than a category in that it permits context and narrative. There is no question that fake diseases exist (morgellons, chronic Lyme, adrenal fatigue) and this article collects these quack magnets into a single place. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not a list of fake diseases, however. It is a list of questionable diseases. It seems to me ridiculous to bestow anything as positive as "questionable" on Morgellons, which is fake, a mass delusion, but this article says Morgellons is as believable as non-coeliac gluten sensitivity. That's misleading. We need to solve that. TNT is my suggestion.

We have articles on alternative medicine, quackery and Mass psychogenic illness. Is this article adding anything to those? Bondegezou (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Its usually best to keep similar wingnuttery in one place. To respond to Bondegezou, while individually an item or two might be useful at alternative articles as an example, what tends to happen is that it gets over-expanded and then just becomes another vector for argument. Small concise lists are generally the best for material like this. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per my answer to JzG, this is not a list of "wingnuttery". It is a list of "questionable" diseases, and as per GreenMeansGo, there is no unambiguous and objective definition of "questionable". If you want List of alternative medicine diagnoses or List of discredited diagnoses, that might work, but that's not this. Instead, we have an article that is far too nice to something like Morgellons by likening it to non-coeliac gluten intolerance. We should call wingnuttery what it is, not grace it with something as ambiguous as "questionable". Nor should we tar conditions with mainstream medical support but some element of faddishness about them with undue comparisons. Bondegezou (talk) 09:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article could be expanded with justifications, but I see no reason that it has to be deleted. Natureium (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per above 5 editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename - Unless someone can offer a definition of what exactly makes a disease "questionable", this fails WP:LISTCRITERIA. I see no evidence that "questionable" is unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. GMG^talk 00:14, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a stretch to suggest that medical diagnoses need to be recognized by members of the medical profession.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:36, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not what conditions are recognized, but whether the category "questionable conditions" is recognized in a way that has an objective meaning which can be used to make decisions about what does, and does not belong in this list, and do so without relying on original research. GMG^talk 14:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename (if kept) — The only way I can see a list such as this working is to rename; to remove the ambiguity around questionable (contested/disputed/unproven could work). Then separate the different types of "questionable" diagnoses into contextual subheadings. The sections could cover alternative medicine (e.g. adrenal fatigue), disproved conditions (e.g. morgellions), urban myths (e.g. fan death (if it were readded)), historically contested but gaining (e.g. non-celiac gluten sensitivity) etc... However, I'm not sure if doing so goes against the spirit of WP:NOTDIRECTORY? Little pob (talk) 11:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename. I recently added "Reward deficiency syndrome" to this list. I think it is a useful category. "Disputed" is a more neutral term than "questionable", but for the most part I think that is false both-sides-ism. We can make judgment calls, and justify them with reference to majority clinical opinion. For example, Chronic fatigue syndrome is a disputed diagnosis, and does not deserve to be on this page. Chronic Lyme disease is a questionable diagnosis. I do, however, support a motion to rename the page List of discredited diseases.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Yikes. I'd say to "controversial", but that would open up a much larger can of worms. "Discredited"? Wind turbine syndrome was a new one on me. Basie (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discredited is good. Its definition is more specific than "questionable". The point is that you need consensus from a certain group of accredited people (i.e. doctors) to define a medical diagnosis, and if those people discredit and reject the diagnosis it will show up on this list.T0mpr1c3 (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are several possible titles, including substituting "diagnoses" for "diseases". The best title depends on the scope of the article. It might be considered legitimate to include real but rare diagnoses that are massively over-hyped by quacks (MTFHR mutation, for example). Worth a discussion when this debate is done. Guy (Help!) 21:05, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good idea. I really like List of questionable diagnoses. Natureium (talk) 23:31, 3 July 2018 (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.