Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology (2nd nomination)

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. After reading through this discussion I think that the consensus was clearly to delete, and the argument that this is an indiscriminate collection of information grouped in a way that is not used in the literature was compelling. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This orphaned article is a list of certain selected diseases based on a new editor's personal idea about their etiology being related, which is clearly forbidden by WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The author -- who hasn't edited on Wikipedia since March -- admitted, in the course of various discussions, that his goal was to use the article as a place to collect information about certain diseases of interest to him, so that he would eventually be able to see a pattern and perhaps come up with new ideas about causes and treatments for these diseases. Various attempts to get him to clarify exactly which articles belonged in his list, what he meant by "unknown etiology", and so forth, all failed.

No articles link to this one, and I can't imagine why any would.

The previous AfD failed as being premature for an article that was under construction (WP:HEY + WP:AGF). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a readable encyclopedia article. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my opinion. although the motives of the author are wonderful and I wish him well in his research. Northwestgnome (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What has this got to do with his research? It's a Wikipedia article? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per WhatamIdoing's well reasoned nomination, my views from the first AfD remain unchanged, this article exists as a tool for a personal project against the spirit of WP:SYNTH. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom RogueNinja_talk 23:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Clearly soapboxing of a viewpoint and essay writing (if you look back to the original versions of the page, before it was partially fixed by other editors, the POV-pushing intent of the originating editor is clear). A similar page called List of syndromes and diseases with unknown etiologies was deleted a few months ago, and this one should be too. ► RATEL ◄ 00:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom: WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. Cliff smith ^talk 00:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postnom changes to the article in consideration, I am now neutral. Cliff smith ^talk 20:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I tried to help with this, but I've given up. I don't think its useful, or is likely to be with any reasonable effort. DGG (talk) 04:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:SYNTH in its purest form. JFW | T@lk 09:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was asked to clarify my vote. There are numerous inflammatory diseases, and many are of unknown etiology, but that doesn't mean that there is a scientific entity by this name. Many of the diseases are known to be immunologically completely unrelated to the other, and to suggest that they are linked just because their exact etiology is unclear is WP:NOR, WP:SYNTH and has large WP:V problems. JFW | T@lk 20:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that there is no such thing a an idiopathic inflammatory disease? Surely you are not claiming such a thing. Whether or not there is a category of things called idiopathic inflammatory diseases that is and should be up to debate, and the merits of this argument should determine the outcome of this nomination. Regardless of what was intended by the originator, an article that discusses idiopathic inflammatory diseases and groups them together by this nomenclature is no more out of order than any other arbitrary method of categorizing: by system, organ or infective agent. If medical schools/medical school textbook authors decide to categorize things by organ, as they most often do, categorization by other means is not wrong, it's just unconventional by medical school textbook standards -- but this is not a medical school textbook. There is no suggestion in this article that these diseases are immunologically related. To suggest that they are linked -- by name, and nothing else, really -- is not at all original research, synthesis by an editor or nearly unverifiable. Your problem, as you stated above, is that these are unrelated. White sponge nevus and lichen planus are unrelated, and just because they can both present as white patches on the buccal mucosa doesn't mean they should be grouped together -- but they are, because that's the arbitrary method that is used to classify these manifestations (leukoplakias). Please specify exactly what the problem with this article is, rather than throw accusations that are only loosely applicable, if not unrelated altogether. Thanks :) DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article tries to unify things that cannot and need not be unified. It serves no purpose other than that. My opinion stands, I'm affraid. JFW | T@lk 13:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your position is based on a poor understanding of the article, then -- the purpose of the article is merely to classify and categorize, not to unify. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- it appears as though the vast majority of votes are based on the supposition that, because this article was generated in violation of a policy, it may not be allowed to remain, even though it meets all the criteria for an article. It is sourced, it is notable, and it is verifiable. Inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology is a prominant collection of diseases that appears in every medical and pathology textbook. While the initial editor may be censured for his attempts at using Wikipedia as a clearinghouse, information collection system or whatever, the fact remains that this article possesses merit to exist because it meets, and perhaps even exceeds, all of the criteria necessary. The interesting fact that most of the voted for 'delete' merely reiterate "per nomination" is an indication that these editors probably do not understand medicine or pathology and are merely jumping on a bandwagon they don't even understand. The initial editor, as indicated, is not interested in Wikipedia and is not putting up an argument for the retention of this article because he's disinterested in it at this point. While the article may not be readable because the initial section is small and the subsequent entries are similary terse and concise, these issues do not produce anything counter to the retention policy of Wikipedia. The aforementioned votes should be striken unless the voters reiterate and restate their decisions -- 20 votes compounding a misunderstood point should not be taken as 20 votes. I will contact each voter for elaboration. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you actually provide a reference to any textbook that groups diseases like this?

I can't. I find many textbooks that group inflammatory diseases together. I find a relatively small number that group selected diseases in general by their cause. I find no textbooks that group specific inflammatory diseases together because their etiology is unknown. If you can produce a reliable source, then I will certainly consider withdrawing the nomination. But in the absence of a single example -- and I assure you that several physicians and researchers here have searched for exactly that, and every one of us has come up empty-handed -- then I suggest that you re-phrase your statement to say what you actually believe, which is that it seems plausible to you that someone might choose to organize a textbook that way.

Mere speculation that a reliable source might exist, or that it would not be unreasonable for someone to create such a reliable source, is not actually sufficient proof of notability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To begin -- I did not state that medical textbooks produce chapters entitled "Idiopathic inflammatory diseases" -- they don't do this because inflammatory diseases of the bowel should not be grouped with inflammatory diseases of the eye or skin. Idiopathic diseases, those whose etiology, or cause, remain unknown, are grouped together by system or organ, and even if they aren't, that doesn't preclude a Wikipedia article from incuding them, because textbooks are interested in laying out information in a way that is conducive to school learning, while a Wikipedia could lay it out in a different format. It would not be a violation of WP:OR to group them together, if in fact they are all idiopathic, just because one cannot find a textbook that groups all of them together. That said, my systemic pathology coursebook from New Jersey Dental School lists, at the end of the chapter on Diseases of the Gastrointestinal Tract, a section on Idiopathic Inflammatory Bowel Diseases that includes Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. What exactly is the basis for recommending this article for deletion -- it's like deleting an article on Tom Hanks just because the original editor admits to writing it because she is in love with him and collects things about him and is the president of her self-run Tom Hanks Fan Club. The fact that Tom Hanks is extremely notable gives the article merit to exist assuming all of the proper rules are kept in writing and maintaining the article. So too here -- if there is nothing wrong except soapboxing -- it should be overlooked because it not only meets but exceeds every other criteria, like Tom Hanks' biggest fan soapboxing over him. Let me know if I answered your question or missed your point, thanx. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a few diseases here and there, because etiology is sometimes helpful. It's helpful to know, for example, whether the inflammation is caused by an immune response or by physical trauma. But a wide range of unrelated diseases like this? Never. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (who suggests that you chat up Kiron Das in your gastroenterology department to find out the etiology of ulcerative colitis, BTW.)[reply]

OK -- Unit 1 of the New Jersey Dental School Oral Pathology course binder is about oral lesions, including those of viral, bacterial and fungal origin. There is then a chapter entitled Other Oral Mucosal Inflammatory Diseases, authored by Joseph Rinaggio, DMD (currently the course director of Histology and seconday lecturer of Oral Pathology). It covers inflammatory diseases that affect the oral mucosa that are not bacterial, viral or fungal in origin and include:

• Recurrent aphthous stomatitis
• Behcet's syndrome
• Psoriasiform lesions
• Non-infectious granulomatous diseases
• Sarcoidosis

This chapter also includes pathosis due to foreign body or trauma or environmental causes, such as frictional keratosis and submucosal hemorrahage, as well as to various drugs and agents, such as nicotine stomatitis, hairy tongue and angioedema, heavy metal intoxication and graft vs. host disease. The purpose of this article is not to group these together in order to propose they are related -- they are grouped together because they are excluded from known etiological means. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I see no reason to change my vote after this discussion. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I too see no reason to change my vote after the above discussion. ► RATEL ◄ 23:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRosenbach, if your textbook dumps things together under the heading of "miscellaneous other stuff", do you really think that Wikipedia needs an article on "miscellaneous other stuff"? This is not a coherent scientific or medical concept. We should not pretend that it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm new on the scene. By convention, that is how it has been done, historically: bacterial, viral, fungal and unknown, the latter by exclusion. Chapter 9 in Neville's Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology, 2nd Edition published in 2002 ISBN 0721690033 is entitled Allergic and Immunological Diseases, yet veers into indiopathics almost immediately. It begins with aphthous stomatitis (canker sores), indicating that there may be caused by many things but appears to be "different things in different people." If allergies cause it in one population and infectious agents in another and stress in yet another, it is deemed idiopathic. There is no prodecure for diagnosis -- it is merely a diagnosis of exclusion. Behcet's syndrome is next, and no clea causation has been established. Sarcoidosis is next, and it is of "unknown cause." The next group of diseases mentioned by Neville is orofacial granulomatosis, including Melkersson-Rosenthal syndrome and cheilitis granulomatosa are said to be analogous to aphthous stomatitis in that they are idiopathic but appear to represent an abnormal immune reaction. This is followed by Wegener's granulomatosis, of "unknown cause." It is after these 5 diseases -- specifically grouped together by an independant, third-party, highly reputable, medical school-grade oral pathology textbook --- that allergic mucosal reactions to systemic drugs are then introduced. So it appears that there is a category, whether formal or informal, of idiopathic diseases, by exclusion of etiology. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 02:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRosenbach, your concerns are already partially address by the Category:Ailments of unknown etiology. ► RATEL ◄ 02:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking the same thing -- except that a category only categorizes and doesn't do any explaining. The mere presence of a category doesn't educate the reader as to the concept of classification by exclusion and doesn't inform what has been excluded. It does not indicate anything about the diseases other than their lack of known etiology. Why is there a necessary drive to eliminate this information in the form of an article? Perhaps the article should be boiled down to a mere paragraph to explain what I just stated, followed by a list (not an itemized categorization, with insights and quotes) of those which are currently classified as idiopathic inflammatory diseases. What I'm saying is that the rationale for deletion must be an issue of policy, not one of flippant action against something that mighthave been started by someone who did so for the wrong reasons, but which now can exist on its own merit. It seems that each position I argue against is replaced by another position, until I argue that one down as well -- the moving targets appears to manifest as an idiopathic desire to trash this article. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 03:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I see no reason to change my vote either RogueNinja_talk 03:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Diagnosis of exclusion is clearly a notable topic. That article already exists. (You are welcome to expand it, of course.) Furthermore, several of the diseases in this list do not fall into that category -- Multiple sclerosis, for example.

I further agree that Etiology is clearly a notable topic. That article, too, already exists, and this article is not it.

This article is really Selected inflammatory diseases whose etiology is not widely agreed upon, which is rather different. Fundamentally, you need to explain why a list of certain (inflammatory) diseases of unknown etiology, selected according to a secret scheme by the original author, are notable -- not why the concept of an unknown etiology itself is notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intents of the original author are no longer of any concern -- the issue of there not being enough diseases included is an issue of expansion, not of deletion. As it stands, the article has nothing to do with an OR theory that these specific diseases of idiopathic inflammation are tied together -- the article is merely a collection of all diseases of inflammation that do not possess a known etiology. There is a good chance that expansion is being hindered by the current overwhelming misunderstanding that is eliciting 'delete' voted from all the editors who cannot or will not formulate a rationale for expressing their thoughts -- as though it is a foregone conclusion that this article simply must be deleted. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I also see no reason to change my opinion expressed above. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete sorry. just too heterogeneous to be a coherent article. Not only are there odd groups of articles, but many of them vary widely in their degree of 'unknownness'. Anyone who knows me knows I ususally keep most things but this amounts to misinformation. sorry. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all the above reasons —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SYNTH. The content is relevant, reliably sourced, and encyclopedic, but the intersection of subjects is none of these. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:Synthesis. I find the article mildly interesting, but it is not up to us to create new categorizations of diseases that are not used elsewhere. If 'unknown etiology' was a widely-recognized and documented feature of diseases that different textbooks agreed upon, we could certainly make a list or category of such diseases. But from the above discussion I'm not perceiving that such is the case. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this could become a good article some day, but the current one is a mess. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 04:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This does seem to be quite promising although OR concerns should be addressed which is regular editing. IMHO, this could easily be refocussed in the lede to show how inflamatory diseases have been considered in the past and show research to illustrate how this has changed. Hard to believe with the mountain of health-related publications available, doctors -love- to write after all, that some encyclopedic approach couldn't be achieved either showing that connections are inconclusive or here are some initial findings. OR flags are all well and good and are blunted with sourcing and better writing. We need more folks with medical training to see if this is workable - also has Immune mediated inflammatory diseases been mentioned? Banjeboi 23:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The delete votes are like a Who's Who listing from WP:MED. All the physicians and other biomedical people who have responded favor deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP does not lead, it follows. Point to just one reputable source that groups diseases in this way before it can be considered non-OR. Secondly, inflammation is a feature, even if subtly, in virtually every disease in the already-existing Category:Ailments of unknown etiology. ► RATEL ◄ 01:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did -- Neville's 2nd Edition Oral and Maxillofacial Pathology (as cited above, if you would take a look) puts all of the diseases affecting the oral cavity with no known etiolgy into one chapter - because that's what idiopathology is -- it's a catch all. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstand me. You are referring to a dental textbook that groups all diseases of unknown etiology affecting a specific part of the body. I was asking you to cite a medical textbook that groups inflammatory diseases of unknown etiology. Since the concept of inflammation is evolving and complex, I do not believe such a listing exists anywhere, which makes this article an attempt at an original synthesis, notwithstanding your apparent approval and championing thereof.► RATEL ◄ 14:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we dial it down a bit please? I made a comment not a decree. I'm not familiar with the "Who's Who listing from WP:MED" not do I claim to be an authority on medical research. Just because no source has been introduced to satisfy concerns doesn't mean they don't exist, just that they aren't here to satisfy concerns raised. And I apologize if you feel I was advocating that we lead in some way, I was observing that citing research in this area can be handled encyclopedicly. Whether someone takes the effort to find sources that deal with this is another issue altogether. Banjeboi 02:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) sorry, I do appreciate the work gone into it..I am trying to think of a good analogy..but I can't. Anyway, the examples are so diverse that any common linkage is misleading. We have diseases of exclusion for which psychosomatic causes have been proposed (IBD), generela terms for non-diseases (gastroenteritis), etc. Inflammation is a very general reaction, and there are more differences than similarities for most of the conditions mentioned. I am trying to clarify so does that make sense? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is beyond me why people are arguing that this article doesn't unify its members well -- that is not its purpose. The article is merely focusing on a symptom and classifying a number of diseases which manifest that symptom. The focus, however, is on diseases that manifest this symptom with no known cause. How can lack of similarity between different diseases be a topic of discussion that disables the merit of this article when it is not asserted that Behcet's is at all tied to Wegener's granulomatosis -- they are merely two of many idiopathic inflammatory diseases. Of course there are more differences that similarities -- the article merely addresses the similarity that they are all idiopathic. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is it is too broad and misses the point - yes there is/are inflammatory processes at work, but inflammation is really common, in everything from wound healing, to degenerative, to infective to neoplastic to autoimmune diseases. It is a bit like having a list of all roads made of ashphalt or famous people with two eyes. In this list you have some autoimmune diseases, degenerative, (possibly) psychosomatic, all of which have a lot more not in common than the tenusous and near-ubiquitous inflammatory process. You have discrete syndromes, diagnoses by exclusion, and vague ones like gastroenteritis which are descriptors for symptoms more often than not. Inflammation is certainly not a symptom in many either, but a small part of a larger pathway, and is so nonspecific as to be meaningless, and misleading as it diverts attention away form some of the fascinating research into many of these conditions. Sorry. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the fairly compelling arguments above. It would be redundant to add too much, but what is especially compelling is the notion that this article seeks to combine a broad set of symptoms, factors and diseases into one categorization absent some secondary source doing the same. Protonk (talk) 00:28, 18 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.