Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatzfeldt Syndrome

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 delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 03:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hatzfeldt Syndrome

Hatzfeldt Syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Suspected hoax. There are no PubMed results for "Hatzfeldt syndrome"; "Hatzfeld" only gets hits in author names, mostly in molecular biology papers. There are no PubMed results for "Systemic Neuro-Epiphysial Disorder", and there shouldn't be, because there are no anatomical structures to which the term "neuroepiphyseal" could apply; I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a "neuroepiphysis", at least not in people. A Google search gets only two hits in seemingly reputable sites that are not Wikipedia mirrors: this and this. For a quite detailed critique by User:Fuzzform of why this article makes absolutely no sense scientifically, please see User_talk:Fvasconcellos#Re:_Hatzfeldt_Syndrome. By the way, I intend to notify WP:MED of this discussion. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed both the sites you mentioned, asking what their source was (?just WP itself, in which case shame on Oakland Institute). David Ruben ^Talk 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good, I was sidetracked while trying to do the same. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Received nice email back from sleep.org thanking us for the "catch" and they have now removed the term from their dictionary :-) David Ruben ^Talk 19:47, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - seems fake, but even if some obscure paper does claim for the term, it is not an accepted term (zero PubMed hits and likewise not listed in WHO's ICD10), and fails meet criteria of notability (remember not everything that is true has to be included in wikipedia). I'll reconsider if either of above websites can point to a source, but WP:N would still seem unlikely to be met... David Ruben ^Talk 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per CSD G1. No reason this has to languish as long as the Eiiris,_K._Kagami article has. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Meh. Looks like CSD=/= hoaxes. Protonk (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Ongoing WP:V problems. Even if the condition exists, it seems it is being promulgated non-scientifically and would not normally be considered even by sleep experts. In medicine, absence from PubMed is a guarantee to non-notability, even if the condition is recognised by some. JFW | T@lk 06:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete unless citations from reliable sources are added to comply with the verifiability policy. Probable hoax. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Stifle. Jakew (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as likely hoax. I tried Amazon.com, Academic Search Complete, and J-Stor and could not find any results. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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.