Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peanut butter test

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 no consensus.  Sandstein  11:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peanut butter test (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)

Based on a single RCT that looked at 18 people with "probable AD". And the popular press it generated. Does not look notable yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure, even though the test itself may not warrant much faith, does not mean the subject isn't notable enough to be covered encyclopedically. Other layman's tests have been used, or at least tried, so this may be a part of that legacy. And even if the underlying scientific hypothesis is debunked, there might be enough sourcing to explain why it was, thus meeting GNG in the process. Any way I look at it I do think somewhere the story, and it's outcomes, should be acknowledged for people seeking the information, even if it's ultimately disproven altogether. Sportfan5000 (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

  We are not a news source. Everything that is in the news does not get a Wikipedia page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It does if its notable enough, and someone puts in the work. This reminds me of canine cancer detection. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

  Changing to keep, based on ensuing discussion, and sources noted. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

• Keep This article may have received coverage for only a few weeks, but so have many other Wikipedia articles. Keeping this article will contribute a net benefit to Wikipedia as a whole, and it satisfies notability requirements. Many other "fad" scientific theories that have been quickly forgotten have been covered on this very encyclopedia! Cold fusion achieved mainstream coverage for a bit, but then was forgotten about. At the very least, merge this into a different article that is broader, but I think this is notable enough to be its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123chess456 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 03:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:GNG per [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], and per WP:NTEMP. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:46, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I posted this argument at Project Medicine but will repost here (I think it's an interesting dilemma). This story appears to have hit the media as a classic viral story. On Oct 8 the U Florida publishes a press release about the article, which is republished by Futurity.org (a non-profit with many Univeristy "partners") that features the university discoveries. Someone posts a link to the Futurity article on Reddit and it goes viral within the site (2700 upvotes and hundereds of comments). Oct 10/11 (2 and 3 days later) it's picked up by CBS, NPR, FOX, USA Today and gets bigger after that for a very short time. Classic gorilla marketing. They reported only on the publication, not how this techique revolutionized the investigation of Alzheimer's (in fact many sources critized the test). Cold fusion was original research that had the potential to change the world which is why, imo, it was picked up. This was a quirky medical test that happened to go viral. At the end of the day, context matters and this is a scholarly article that should be subject to scholarly standards. As original research it would not warrant an article. Imo, viral spread in the news media, should not in-and-of-itself, define notability although it's something to take into consideration. By letting articles like this stand does Wikipedia become an extension of the gorilla marketing arm? Ian Furst (talk) 16:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the study wasn't published until last October, the idea of a smell test for Alzheimer's predates it by at least a few years: [6] Also, I think the article should be kept per Northamerica1000's arguments above. Jinkinson talk to me 17:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No arguing that an olfactory test might be a useful diagnostic tool. “Olfactory test cognitive impairment” in pubmed returns many citations. But this article, is about one study not the test. It’s conclusion (as I understand it) is that if you can’t sniff peanut butter beyond 10cm out of your left nostril it’s diagnostically indicative of cognitive impairment (CI). It was a retrospective, case control study. It appears they were already doing the test and decided to case control it retrospectively by getting a normal sample group of similar age and gender. The gold standard appears to be clinical exam and DI to rule-out other causes of CI. They don’t mention the use of LP or biomarkers although it’s possible – my suspicion, given the retrospective nature of the study, was that diagnostic criteria varied by patient. Of the 133 in the “initial cohort” (e.g. those referred to a neurologist for CI) 65 where excluded (49%). No mention of meds that might impact olfactory response. This resulted in 4 groups; 18 with probable Alzheimer’s (AD), 24 amnestic CI, 26 with other causes and 26 in the control group. The mean sniffing distance for all groups and the right nostril of the AD group was (roughly) 17+/-9cm whereas the left nostril of the AD group was 5.1+/-4.9 cm. The study suffers from huge selection bias, observational bias and I question why they didn’t use long-term follow-up as part of the gold standard given the diagnostic challenges of Alzheimer’s. The point of this, is that it’s an interesting study and may lead to something bigger but it’s a far cry from a potential screening tool which is what many of the press reports imply. Why not create a “sniff test” article (generic – to the standards of MEDMOS for tests) rather than this specific peanut butter one? Ian Furst (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is then an entryway to discuss Olfactory test cognitive impairment, and what published papers to date do have to say. In this way we are leveraging the notable interest, which is, for better or worse, the same kind of hook our own DYK articles, and mass media use, to talk about subjects that might otherwise be too boring for people to cake much about. Meanwhile we can also talk about the relative weight of any findings and offer insight what readers should consider with a report like this. Sportfan5000 (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]

• Delete We have about 25 million primary sources on pubmed. Not all of them deserve an article. This study is small and simply not notable. Would not allow any of the refs used here to be used within a medical article per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:01, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good reason not to let WP:MEDRS run rampant deleting content and sources. If this were the Olfactory test cognitive impairment article, then arguably fine, hack away, but this is an adjacent article, where not everything has to be governed by a standard that, in my opinion, should not apply to every facet of every article that has some medical content. Ideally WP:MEDRS would be applied to specific medically-focussed sections so that our readers could tell what is being reported from that perspective. I think by forcing an article, specifically one that is not a medical one, to be seen through a WP:MEDRS filter, Wikipedia then violates its own NPOV by presenting only that aspect. I think a reasonable compromise is to find ways to specify what medical science has to say on a subject without overwhelming all other content and sourcing. In the case of Peanut butter test perhaps a section just on "Background on olfactory test cognitive impairment" would meet both concerns and serve our readers, rather than dismiss the entire subject out of hand. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
    • It is trivia which will likely come to nothing and never be looked at again. It is the type of quirky stuff that makes the news. And is part of the reason why Wikipedia is so unbalanced. Major events like the death of 10s of thousands are occurring due to starvation in Chad, were peanut butter might be of some use. The media more or less ignores this story and instead concentrates on the use of people butter in 15 people with AD which is unconfirmed by any others. We at Wikipedia do not need to follow suit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:34, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I appreciate your take, I just don't agree. I see reporting on this subject NPOVly as being balanced, Wikipedia does not make the news, we follow what is reported, even if we may feel it is trivial, or trivializing. Sportfan5000 (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
        • With due respect Sportsfan5000, this story and article is exclusively about the report of a single sign in a medical exam. How can it not be subject to MEDMOS? To write this article properly, someone would need to review the study alone then add a blurb at the end about press coverage for a week. Compare it to Lower limbs venous ultrasonography. Other "filters" would include press coverage of a topic but I don't think other groups in Wikipedia would find the topic coverage notible either. This doesn't mean that an article can't be created nor the press coverage from this excluded but it should, imo, be based on better research. Ian Furst (talk) 23:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was responding to the all or nothing, black and white approach when I really think there is room for NPOV presentation that doesn't have to be oppressed by the MEDRS reasoning that only MEDRS sourcing is allowed. We report on subjects all the time that are debunked without going to great lengths to dismiss the ideas, or people behind them. There is room to present a good article without compromising NOV and caging this as only quackery. When the good folks behind MEDRS do this they change to level of disrepute of Wikipedia, to, for lack of better term, an ivory-tower elitism. Not all folk remedies are hokum, and we can't pretend the sum of human medical knowledge rests silly with those who are in the pipelines to even get published. Let alone the many compromising forces funding research, and why research does always serve the best interests of humankind. Their are inherent flaws throughout, so let's be mindful of systematic bias, and perhaps think of the best ways to serve our readers. Present the subject as reported, perhaps delve into what were there reasons, funding, etc. Include a section on how the field has evolved, and give any specific medical science to he subject. No reason their study can't be qualified as being limited yet popularly reported. Perhaps there is an opportunity here, if sources make the connection, why society spends too much time reporting on the peanut butter effect, and not feeding peanut butter to the starving masses in Chad. Sportfan5000 (talk) 00:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC) [WP:BAN 03:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)][reply]
• Keep without prejudice to future merge/redirect/rename - lots of mass media attention, linked above, to this particular study. There may be no real association between loss of smell and Alzheimer's, but either way it merits some coverage here. The suggestion to the contrary above alarmed me. Studies which don't end up panning out still should be covered! (E.g., "at one point initial study X hypothesized Y, but this turned out not to be the case as demonstrated in later study Z"). My vote is without prejudice to a future merge/redirect to an article on predicting cognitive impairment more broadly. There is no shortage of science on the topic - one recent study showed some potential for predicting dementia through lipids in blood tests. These studies should be treated together in a unified article, something like predicting amnestic mild cognitive impairment. Neutrality^talk 23:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per User:Northamerica1000 and User:Neutrality. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 17:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "they caution they can currently only use the test to confirm already-established diagnoses, but added that...we plan to..."? They "found" a test to confirm an already established diagnoses. Wow. This is not very notable from a scientific point of view. The references are crap from a medical point of view. But the marketing is very good. Ochiwar (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2014 (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.