Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delayed Surreal Recall Disorder

Delayed Surreal Recall Disorder

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

This is a procedural nomination; nom'd for CSD as a hoax; I'm not comfortable killing it under that grounds. Sending it here in hopes that we can confirm or deny existence. - Philippe 02:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although there is a chance that this is for real, the phrase "making scholastic comprehension very difficult and often requiring those afflicted to take copious notes at the end of the day" sets off my bullshit detector with the possibility of this being a university-student-style hoax, or some sort of elaborately etiolated attack page. My understanding of WP:FRINGE suggests that if the scientific claim is far-fetched, the standard of proof required is somewhat higher; according to the talk page, this has nothing but "mistaken" citations. As the nominator suggests, I'd like some reliable sources. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not in DSM IV nor in DSM V draft. Hoax. --Bejnar (talk) 07:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I originally tagged this for speedy delete as a hoax based on the fact that (1) there were zero mentions of the syndrome whatsoever in Medline, Psycinfo, or SCOPUS; (2) Google hits consisted ONLY of links to items generated by the inclusion in wikipedia; (3) the original reference cited by the contributor was about albinism and nowhere mentioned the disorder (later claimed as a copy and paste error by original editor); and (4) the article itself cites that there are only 4 known cases worldwide with 1 in the United States. I hadn't gotten around to checking DSM IV (or the DSM V draft) but see that Bejnar has done so and hasn't found any support. I'm just trying to point out even if this wasn't correctly tagged, it wasn't an irrational snap decision. I've even got a request via interlibrary loan for the latest reference cited and posted on the article's talk page to the original editor that I wouldn't do anything to the article until I saw that article. In any case, the lack of evidence is pretty overwhelming that this syndrome doesn't warrant a wikipedia article (and I will grant that it might not be a "hoax" even though it has all of the hallmarks of one, albeit possibly inadvertently). -Quartermaster (talk) 14:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]