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]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero hits from scholar [1] books [2] and pubmed [3] Therefore does not appear to be a real disorder. The ref [4] does not appear to discuss this term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reinforcing that this is a hoax: When I challenged the originator of the article that the initial reference used to support the existence of this syndrome had nothing do with the syndrome (it dealt with albinism) I was told:

The reference is a [sic] miss-paste and as such should be disregarded. The disorder, however, and quite unfortunately, is quite real. As being a caretaker for a close friend suffering from DSRD, I find it immediately offensive for it to be called a hoax. I think the people seeking awareness for this condition would also find it quite offensive. Again, the reference is a mistake, which will be rectified shortly. --Nerushing (talk) 15:45, 23 February 2010

The "rectification" consisted of removing the first cite and replacing it with this:

Ross D, Heward K, Salawu Y, Chamberlain M, Bhakta B. Upfront and enabling: Delivering specialist multidisciplinary neurological rehabilitation. International Journal of Therapy & Rehabilitation [serial online]. February 2009;16(2):107-113. Available from: Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed February 23, 2010.

I just received the full article for the above citation which was substituted for the "mis-pasted" original reference, and like the initial article referenced there is absolutely nothing relevant in it regarding the disorder as described. It appears the original editor is engaged in willful chicanery. -Quartermaster (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]