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

Add links
Source: 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

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

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]
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]
  • Strong delete Oh please, MastCell is spot on. This article will never be reliably sourced, and therefore notability can never be established. Please delete. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:04, 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. --
    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: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
          ]
  • Merge. This article just discusses the underlying premise for colonics/colonic irrigation, on which we have articles. JFW | T@lk 20:15, 24 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: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 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. --
talk) 08:07, 25 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.
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]
  • Keep. This article is informative and sufficiently sourced. It meets all minimal requirements.Biophys (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well written, balanced, well sourced article which meets
    WP:NOTE benchmark. I see no reason for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:20, 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: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
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. --
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.
talk) 21:13, 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.
    • We're not here to talk about whether it exists or not, we're here to talk about whether the article is worthy of deletion. If you want to discuss whether it exists, take it to the talk page for the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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"