Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mucoid plaque (3rd nomination)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. MBisanz talk 01:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mucoid plaque

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Mucoid plaque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Sigh. Please accept this renomination in good faith.

I will pretty much repeat MastCell at the second nomination. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mucoid plaque (second nomination)

This article fails notability guidelines per WP:FRINGE. No reliable independent sources can be found to establish a coherent sourced article. Without this base, wikipedia can not create an article within its own guidelines.

This is not for want of trying, several neutral editors have attempted to clean up this article, but can not as the sources just do not exist to create it.

A lot of the good-faith support for the article, and insistence of editors that they will "watch" the article, contribute and ensure it becomes a good warning of the faults of mucoid plaque have come to naught.

The article is doomed to fail as it is about a non-notable condition not accepted by the medical fraternity (see WP:FRINGE) that was admittedly created by "some guy" on the basis of some reports he read in early 20th century journals (see guidelines on neologisms, and Things made up one day by "some guy"). Independent coverage comes in the forms of self-labelled unreliable websites. (see Heelop's comments here [1]).

Using questionable sources like these results in overuse of ugly weasel-like terms such as "allegedly", "claims to", "speculates that" etc. and/or reliance on citing authors credentials promote a POV about their status as an expert ("M.D") or non-expert ("entrepenuer").

Wikipedia does not serve to be a watchdog, and has no duty to expose frauds. Wikipedia is a tertiary resource that accumulates information from reliable sources to create a database of neutral information on notable topics.

At present this article

  1. Cannot be reliably sourced
  2. Cannot be made neutral
  3. Is not notable, as established by the absence of independent coverage by neutral reliable sources.

Bottom line. Fails notability + Unable to be appropriately sourced = Unencyclopedic content.

ZayZayEM (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that is obviously a controversial topic. Several editors actively engaged in the editing of this article have suggested renomination for deletion.
Please consider some of the Arguments To Avoid in deletion discussions. Votes without substance and/or fail to address valid concerns brought up by the nominator and subsequent contributors may be counterproductive to wikipedia's processes. If you claim there are reliable sources, please point them out. If you think it is notable, please qualify that statement.
Wikipedia has no obligation to provide responsible health advice to its readers. Wikipedia is not a warning system. Wikipedia is not mythbusters. Wikipedia is neutral, objective, impartial and is limited to those sources that are available.--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment, no vote. To contributors: Please remember that it is not the fact this is a fringe theory that may make it worthy of deletion. There are plenty of fringe theories and wacko ideas covered in Wikipedia. Discussion should be centered on (1) Whether or not this theory has garnered enough publicity from independent, third-party sources to make it notable; and (2) Whether or not there are reliable, third-party sources to verify its notability. •Life of Riley (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – it may be nonsense, but a quick check of the sources shows that there are indeed multiple independence reliable sources that discuss this topic. If the article is based on the sources, I don't see why it shouldn't stay. If it's not, fix it. (I haven't read it). Dicklyon (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please provide some of these sources and the content they contain. MastCell and myself, as well as mucoid-plaque advocate have been unable to locate these. Without actually being able to access these sources, we will be unable to create an article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This reference by a mainstream scientist justifies inclusion. If someone reads about this item and wants to be informed, they come to Wikipedia. The article appears well written and properly sourced, with over 73,000 ghits. That something is a fringe theory is no reason for deletion in itself. Crum375 (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The quackwatch article may be the best independent source we can provide (which I think it may actually be). It consists of a 60 word response that are the opinion of an accredited teaching doctor that the condition does not exist. This is not enough to create more than a stub. Wikipedia needs to have enough reliable material to create more than a stub. Please provide more sources, it will be appreciated by those of us who have tried.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I'm convinced that it's a fringe idea only believed in by cranks and quacks, but there seems to be enough reliable material from organisations dedicated to debunking potentially harmful fringe ideas like this for the subject to pass WP:N. I respect where the nominator is coming from, I just don't agree. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Still going on keep, and my !vote in the 2nd AFD continues to reflect my opinion on the issue. Yes, WP:FRINGE does apply, but it does explain the hoax in decent detail. It's one of those cases, I think, where WP:IAR very much applies. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please please please. This will never be a decent encyclopedia article, because the profile of this "disease" is so low that there are few or no good sources. If this article is kept, then I would like to ask the keep !voters to all watchlist the article. It is consistently patrolled by an agenda account, Heelop (talk · contribs), dedicated to promoting this concept, so just maintaining it is kinda painful. More eyes would help, though I still think this fails WP:FRINGE and should be deleted. MastCell Talk 04:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Something does not have to actually exist to be notable. it just has to be discussed. I would be extremely surprised if this were in any sense real, but it is still the subject of significant references. I think we have all the more reason to provide decent information about medical nonsense--I'd almost word it as an obligation, considering our prominence. Basically I follow Crum's view very closely. DGG (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia has no obligation to discuss anything.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • DGG, you're a librarian, and you have access to a fantastic level of sources. Can you provide a list of sources that properly describe this subject and which will allow the article to be developed from sources that specifically talk about this concept (instead of from the primary literature about the individual features of the idea, which is what the article primarily seems to do now)? If you can't find sources, then I'm willing to believe that they don't exist. I will wait for your response before making a judgment myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the present sources sufficient for an article. I do not understand what you mean by speaking about the concept, not the features. scientific articles normally talk about specifics. A history of the delusion of there being mucoid plaques is what you are asking for, but i do not see why it is necessary. Most WP articles are sourced by references discussing specific points. DGG (talk) 15:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So in your opinion, while there is significant coverage of, say, the characteristics of normal mucus membranes, there is no significant coverage of this specific concept in independent, third-party reliable sources? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think. Yes mucoid plaque is a fabrication by unscrupulous quacks, but it appears to be a notable fabrication. And it is also something that people want to know about: [2] for example, refers them to the QuackWatch article. Yes, it can be sourced, albeit that there are not many reliable sources to balance the promotional nonsense. Addendum: I have nothing against a merge to another article, provided we don't lose the sourced fact that mucoid plaque is an invention. Guy (Help!) 23:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is a concept that really only does rounds on random quack websites and websites that respond to such websites really notable. I have no problem with mucoid plaque being reasonably portrayed on other articles. But there is not enough accessible reliable content to develop even a consensus on hat mucoid plaque "is" to justify an article.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very notable fringe subject and reliable sources have criticized it. They can be used. While Wikipedia's primary purpose isn't to debunk weird and false ideas, it often can serve that noble purpose. Wikipedia's main purpose is to document reality as it is presented in V & RS, and part of that reality is the fact that idiots, scammers, fools and jerks spout off their ideas and people get deceived. We document the situation and provide the facts about it. Heelop should be dealt with as an SPA who misuses Wikipedia for advocacy. A topic block might be a good idea. Articles like these need patrolling and guarding as long as Wikipedia doesn't establish a system of stabilising (some form of protection) articles that reach a certain point of being "finished". GA articles need that type of protection. That doesn't mean they can't be edited, but it should be controlled. -- Fyslee (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See comments above. Wikipedia has no obligations to cover any topic. Also please assist in establish notability and RS-coverage by actually locating such sources, rather than insisting they exist.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- If its a hoax, its a notable hoax, and needs to be covered here. Umbralcorax (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not follow this logic. Are all hoaxes inherently notable? Again, wikipedia has no obligation. Admitting everything just because it is a hoax is letting terrorists win - you are giving attention whores the satisfaction of credibility.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My point is that the hoax itself has become notable, which is certainly not unheard of. At the risk of sounding like i'm just saying What about X, Piltdown Man is an example of what I mean. It was a hoax perpetrated on the scientific community that became famous AS a hoax, and was therefore notable. I think this is notable in a similar fashion. Umbralcorax (talk) 01:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please qualify "has become notable". How exactly? ( WP:IKNOWIT, WP:INHERITED ) Being promoted on the internet is not notability. Being called a load of crap by non-notable doctors on the internet is not notability. There has been no featuring in notable sources from either the CAM-side (eg. NCCAM or international equivalents) or critical side. No significant coverage by independent media organisations exists of "mucoid plaque" in any detail outside of the context of greater "purging" "cleansing" practices.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - I cannot envisage how a neutral article can be written on this. It is extremely unlikely that any mainstream studies will be conducted and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Furthermore, by keeping this article, credence would be given by simply having an entry in a respected encyclopaedia. It's not just nonsense, it's dangerous nonsense. Graham Colm Talk 19:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I've added some sources that discuss the real mucus layer in the gut, but couldn't find anything much in good sources that discusses this hypothetical mucus layer. I think it just scrapes into notability by being mentioned so widely in quack publications and fad diet books. In terms of real sources this article places these products in historical context, and this article deals with colonic irrigation. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a very good example of how little coverage this concept gets. A throw away comment in the last section of a non-specific colon-related article. The best this can contribute to the article is "Today, herbal and alternative medicine magazines carry ads for ``cleansing programs that promise to rid the body of toxins that linger in the intestines in a slimy layer of something called ``mucoid plaque." The question to consider is, can a reliable article (not a stub) be developed in this manner. If we are discussing mucoid plaque, mucoid plaque needs to be central to this discussion. See JFW's merge proposal.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. From reading the above, the result will be keep or no consensus, and there's no point dragging this out. Cf WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED; consensus can change but it clearly hasn't.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could I ask the above "keep" please be considered a comment, and not counted, by the closing admin. It contributes nothing to the discussion on why this article should be kept or deleted, other than abiding by consensus. Consensus should be abided by anyway, but by joining a side of a debate insisting that it should win because it is winning, and then contributing to its winning potential for that very reason, is quite clearly preposterous.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, no vote. If you are going to consider this a notable fringe subject, then the WP: Fringe rules apply which says that “Theories should receive attention in Wikipedia in proportion to the level of detail in the sources from which the article is written” and “Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing” and “fringe theory proponents are excellent sources for describing what they believe” and “critiques of [criticism of the fringe theory] can likewise be gleaned from websites and books that are not peer reviewed”. This means that Anderson’s very long and detailed arguments in support of his theory should receive attention and that if there is no criticisms of it available, well, you are out of luck. Tim Vickers, Anderson’s scanning electron microscope sources that discusses this hypothetical mucus layer can be found here. Would you like me to add it to the Wiki article like you did with the other journals you added or should we zealously suppress it? Heelop (talk) 20:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources, one is a review from 1978 that hypothesizes that mucus might change in structure during disease, a topic covered in detail in more recent reviews such as the ones I added, and a primary research paper, which can't be used as a sole source in a medical article for a controversial claim that contradicts the better sources on the topic. You really need to read WP:MEDRS. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh really Tim? The topic of normal mucins undergoing a pathological transformation into either a viscous gel or an insoluble precipitate (a.k.a. plaque) is covered in detail in the reviews that you added? Your reviews say no such thing, Tim. You really need to read WP:FRINGE which says that this mucoid plaque article is not considered to be a medical article and WP:SYN which says that you cannot synthesis published material to advance a position. Heelop (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews I added cover the real changes in intestinal mucus during disease. You are entirely correct that they do not discuss the "precipitate hypothesis", since this is not a real clinical finding and there is no data to support this idea. These reviews also fail to discuss unicorns or the Loch Ness monster, for similar reasons. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because researchers choose to play peek-a-boo by not studying the precipitate aspect of mucus on the intestines does not make it magically not exist. I’m saddened that a PhD would think that a journal article on the mating habits of African dung beetles somehow disproves that African dung beetles don’t feel pain. That 1978 study makes it very conceivable. As a reminder, the WP:SYN rule prevents you from using your reviews to synthesis a critique of Anderson’s theory. Heelop (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hate to be a dick on this. But I agree with Heelop's interpretations of SYNTH on this. Unless your sources directly discuss a concept of "mucoid plaque", using them in this article, and interpreting them as such, goes into original-research territory. Yes, there are sources on intestinal physiology that deal with mucous secretion and health, but they do not mention a concept "mucoid plaque" - this means interpreting them in context of "mucoid plaque" requires, well interpretation, or going beyond the sources, in order to make it relevant to the article at hand.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The SYNTH part of NOR means that articles that do not mention "mucoid plaque" cannot be used to support or attack this hypothesis, they can however be used to describe what is known about the normal function of mucus in the gut and genuine changes in this mucus during disease. This provides context for the reader and helps them understand the other parts of this article that discuss the hoax. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But what is the relevance of regular mucus-health to mucoid plaque. The language is vague enough that no credible link between natural mucous and mucoid plaque (or toxic bowel settlement etc.) is made. It is claimed to "mucus-like", not mucus, by "some guy" no less. Given that it actual cases might be blood clots and/or synthetic polymer masses, this isn't surprising that it lacks actual connection to reality. This runs the risk of straw-man attacks. No clear concept exists to create a viable critique or even context for critique from non-specific sources. No significant reliable third party discussion of mucoid plaque concepts have been identified, only a mottley throw away sentances from questinable, and semi-questionable sources (ie. websites)--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While we are at it, we can add that scanning electon microscope study that Anderson is so fond of to provide “context.” We can tell the audience that a rather thick layer of mucus that impairs absoption and digestion is encountered quite often in certain diseases but pathologists often miss it because they use a light microscope. Tim, you are cherry-picking obscure highly technical research journals to counter Anderson’s theory. This is original research just like a PhD thesis paper is original research. The problem you have is that Anderson’s thesis paper is also original research but not in the wikipedian sense. Heelop (talk) 02:36, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Discuss content issues at the article talk page, please. This is a deletion discussion. In general, though, this does highlight the problem. Either a) sufficient mainstream sources exist to satisfy WP:FRINGE, in which case the article needs to actually reflect those mainstream sources. Or b) since mainstream sources do not call out "mucoid plaque" by name, the topic does not satisfy WP:FRINGE and should be deleted. MastCell Talk 04:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heelop, you hit the problem on the head when you accurately call it "Anderson’s theory". We don't just publish unproven theories here, and certainly not as if they were fact, which Anderson happens to claim and make a killing off of by selling his videos, books, and products. It looks more like a scam. If it's not a scam, then its sheer ignorance. Stop and think about it. The guy's a naturopath! I'd trust my dog for a better medical diagnosis. ;-) His homemade theory based on ignorance and a misinterpretation of what he's observed is only a theory. Somehow all those who know far more than he are somehow wrong, and he only is right.... This theory needs to be treated like what it is, a widespread idea in alternative medicine that has become an enormous industry, and people are buying into it. They need to know that medical science does not buy it at all. It's nonsense. It's a fringe idea and we treat fringe ideas by not giving them credence and by exposing them, AND we don't ignore them. Why? Because it is Wikipedia's job to document what's happening in the world, and (unfortunately) this happens to be a very notable idiotic view in alternative medicine. We would be violating the purpose of Wikipedia to delete this. We need to fix this and if it means blocking you from the article, so be it. You are using Wikipedia for advocacy, which is forbidden. If you were struggling against pushers of fringe POV, in defense of commonly known facts, it would be a different matter, but you are the pusher of a fringe POV, and it's time to stop pushing it. -- Fyslee (talk) 08:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It seems to me to be particularly important for Wikipedia to cover alternative medicine topics like this one, essentially as a public service. The topic is clearly notable within the alternative medicine community (as the hundreds of ghits + 74 books in google book search suggest). It is even discussed in health books published by mainstream publishers (e.g. Calborn The Wrinkle Cleanse: 4 Simple Steps to Softer, Younger-Looking Skin Avery 2006, Garner The Feel of Steel Picador 2001, Brantley The Cure: Heal Your Body, Save Your Life J. Wiley & Sons 2007, Grady The New York Times Guide to Alternative Health: A Consumer Reference Times Books 2001). It's important that when somebody has read one of these books, if they try to find out more about this subject they can come here and see what scientific validity there is in the theory. JulesH (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia has no obligations. Given the prolific promulgation typically seen in altmed communitus, ghits in the 100s and <100 book mentions to me seems a fail on notability. Publishing something is very easy.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely fringy, but it seems notable enough. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 20:39, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep there are all these easily found mentions in published sources [3][4][5] I loathe it to death of course, but it passes WP:NOTE due to having sufficient mentions in books by well known presses etc. We should have it here so we can debunk it for those people that hear of it. Having an article doesn't mean we endorse, au contraire, we can damn it rightfully and with reliable sources backing us up. Sticky Parkin 01:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is why Google searching is not a reliable way to establish notability. If you follow those sources you will see that they provide little or no useable content. They are mirrors of Anderson's own claims on his websites. These are not reliable secondary sources. At Google news.co.uk - 6 hits are direct copies of the same statement under the heading "A common mistake that prevents most people from losing weight ... and..."[6], one is a letter to the editor[7], one is quite clearly adcopy for a product "So Easy!" [8], one is a Natural News article with a motley of unscientific and unsupported claims www.naturalnews.com/025229.html [unreliable fringe source?], remaining is a straight.com article that has been used in the article previously, but provides very little beyond non-expert commentary on the quackwatch article already used and Anderson's own claims [9]. See my above comments. These seemingly large numbers of google hits do not mean anything for a topic of this nature. Notability is a very subjective criteria. When dealing with fringe topics amongst prolifically publishing industries, little over 100 mentions in self-help health books and magazines is not an acceptable level of of notability.
    • Oh, and I just noticed. Wikipedia has no obligation to "debunk it for those people that hear of it".--ZayZayEM (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No but we aim to document the sum of all human knowledge, according to Jimbo himself, and that includes sharing scientific/sceptical opinions if ideas are nonsense. It is mentions in over 100 flakey books [10] some of which however are published by well known presses, hence it passes WP:NOTE, i.e. it is something notable enough to include. Sticky Parkin 02:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please look further than Google. Many of these sources at Google books.co.uk are not books. There are magazine articles (which suffer from the dilating of effect of press release mirroring alredy discussed). [11][12]. Other hits appear to respiratory medicine[13], coronary health[14], and dental health (actually quite a few of these, seems its synomous with dental plaque [15]. If you would like me to similarly dissect the web hits (which include any number of anectdotal accounts, web-forum discussions, personal weblogs, blatant advertising and other forms of unreliable sourcing, I will do so on request.--ZayZayEM (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed in principle but... could you put this on your watchlist please? If more people are watchlisting this crap (ahem) it won't be as frustrating for those of us trying to rein in the promotional stuff. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No probs, has it been a real prob, the article looks good at the mo. I commend you all. Plus there is actually a mouth thing also called mucoid plaque, (maybe just dental plaque?) [16] which accounts for a lot of the hits I think. Sticky Parkin 02:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we take a closer look at the General Notability Guidelines at WP:NOTE, there is this "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."
  • Significant coverage. This asks that "sources address the subject directly in detail ... coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". Most sources do not describe the subject directly, nor in detail that I would say is more than "trivial".
  • Reliable. We have avoided WP:RS which asks for "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", in favour of WP:FRINGE, which lowers the bar for sources considerably.
  • Sources/Independent of the subject. Most of the semi-reliable information found on the interwebs can be traced back to 2-3 sources. Anderson's website and sales material (hardly independent) and two critical web articles from Quackwatch and Straight (not exactly overwhelming).
  • Satisfying these criteria (which I do not think this article does) is presumptive, but not a guarantee of notability.
I am also aware that NOTE also states: "If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate ... deletion should be a last resort." I think this is the main issue that needs to be resolved. In that ellipses lies, "unless active effort has been made to find these sources". And while all the quick google checks yield numerous hits, they fail to yield any actual substantial information that satisfies wikipedia's guidelines on material for inclusion. There's all this background noise, but no signal. --ZayZayEM (talk) 12:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to ZayZayEM Yes, I am very familiar with WP:NOTE. I still believe that the references in the article clearly demonstrate notability. I see there has been extensive discussion on the article's talk page; if there was consensus that these sources were not appropriate, then I am sure they would have been removed by now. You say that most of the information can be traced back to 2-3 sources, but a common origin does not disprove notability; most of the sources on special or general relativity will mention Einstein, most of the sources on evolution will mention Darwin. The key point is that the term has been independently used and the concept has been discussed in multiple sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison between Darwin and Anderson is not really fair. The successive expansive multi-journal works available build upon Darwin's works (like where in Darwinism is genetics...) There is no real innovation in having multiple alt-med news websites that have exactly the same press release ad verbatim. I mean as in three sources that deal with the subject directly. Successive incarnations provide no additional information or intrepetation beyond further marketing claims. These sources have been elected to remain by editors involved (which include myself) by following wikipedia's stance on fringe material. Despite working to the best of our ability, we decided it was still pretty shit and not going anywhere because there was no real information out there to carve a reliable objective article. However stripping down content and wildly deleting chunks of an article in order to nominate it for deletion would be considered rather dick/disruptive behaviour. In my mind this is the GNAA[17] of alt med articles. Except much much much worse (I mean GNAA has national media coverage). Article size and presence of a multitude of poor standard references should not trump wikipedia's standards on notability in a deletion debate.--ZayZayEM (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gandalf61. Notability in the real world is not limited to sources we would choose to cite. For this subject, it happens to exist to a great degree in the fringe world of alternative medicine, and that potentially affects millions of people. We then deal with it as a fringe subject and use two types of sources: (1) self-published sources about the subject (Anderson); and (2) V & RS from mainstream and other non-fringe sources. We should be able to do this with ease and stop the editing and more or less freeze the article by reverting the many "Heelops" out there, who misuse Wikipedia for advocacy and promotion. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But these aren't even sources that have notability in the CAM world. Wikipedia is not the "real world". The notability guidelines clearly ask for coverage in significant sources, independent of the subject that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, that cover the topic directly and in detail. These have yet to be located. --ZayZayEM (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See the sources enric refers to below. The Guardian etc and other well known newspapers. Sticky Parkin 19:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You misspelled Grauniad. HTH. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. I think someone typing in "mucoid plaque" as a search term should find some information, whether it's a whole article or a section of another article. Re notability: there are 13 paragraphs in the article, supported by 15 references, including skeptical sources. That seems enough to me. The fringe guideline allows us to use self-published sources etc. when discussing fringe topics. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (sorry, MastCell) I was about to vote deleted because many of those sources appearing at google books and scholar are describing dental plaques and other types of plaques, and sources are sometimes self-published stuff[18] (from lulu.com). However, this subject is mentioned and even promoted (!) on the pages of many newspapers: The Guardian [19], New York Times[20], San Francisco Chronicle[21], Sunday Mirror[22], Daily Mail[23]. I think many people will go to wikipedia to find what the hell this is, and that we need to have at least a description here so people won't be mislead about what mucoid plaque really is (an inoffensive stuff caused by the medications that suppossedly cure it) --Enric Naval (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ooh aren't you a gem at finding sources? I didn't look through google news far enough past the "better nutrition" magazines or whatever. That's (depressingly) definitive to me. Happily some of those cites are questioning the idea. Sticky Parkin 18:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Enric, no hard feelings (as long as you watchlist the page to help keep it from deteriorating) :) MastCell Talk 21:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I'll do that. Nothing as refreshing and educative as editing articles about what feces should look like :D --Enric Naval (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Enric. The NYT and SFGate articles are in fact the same, and discussed earlier. They do not provide more than a sentance on mucoid plaque. Similarly the "self-experience" articles in the Mail and Mirror do not have any real discussion on what mucoid plaque actual is, other than a term sued by dodgy 'health spa'-style advocates. Google books one though, I think is definitely more the sort of stuff we need. It is self-published material though, it can be used sparingly to build article content, but can't be used for establishing notability.--ZayZayEM (talk) 23:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into colon cleansing. While I appreciate the hard work many people have done trying to find sources for this, I'm just not convinced it passes the notability test in its own right (most of the references in reliable sources cover it in passing, as part of an article on a broader topic), and would be better covered as a subsection of a longer article on alternative medicine ideas about the colon. If it is kept, it should probably be renamed to 'mucoid plaque theory' or even 'mucoid plaque hoax' to make it absolutely clear to readers that this is not a real concept. Terraxos (talk) 20:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see no objection to the use of 'alleged' and 'they say' in a case like this. The subject has a probability that people will want to look it up. Do you want an article promoting this stuff as fact, or showing that some people believe in it (or maybe promote it?) but that there is great doubt? Doubt is hard to quantify and nail down. This article states the case promoted by the 'believers' and also lists the doubts. Peridon (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article should be altered but not deleted. Mucoid Plaque is a reality, and is rebutted by many professionals in the medical profession. I have personally experienced the benefits of cleansing and seen first hand the results of the elimination of Mucoid Plaque.— Preceding unsigned comment added by JRobyn (talk • contribs) (moved from talk - ZZM) — JRobyn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Merge into colon cleansing. There is so much overlap and the name is secondary to the concepts expressed at colon cleansing. Anyone looking for info on mucoid plagues will find everything they need via redirection to the colon cleansing article. ZayZayEM is right in all his comments but policy is just a guide and in this case I think we should have something on the topic, if even just a redirect or subsection in colon cleansing. But a standalone article doesn't seem warranted given the "made up one day" nature of the name, the lack of a precise defintion, the preexisting phenomenon of colon toxicity and cleansing (which Anderson merely slapped a name on, a name rarely repeated in RS), and the lack of coverage in RS about this *particular* phenomenon (as opposed to the larger topic area of colon toxicity). Phil153 (talk) 21:49, 28 January 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mucoid_plaque_(3rd_nomination)&oldid=1142611583"