Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:38, 6 July 2006

Toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease

Contents of page already listed on Toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease#Toxins. This article on the other hand is blatant link-spamming for a web forum. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 11:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Begin list
1. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable. With scientific articles this would require scientific references.
2. Wikipedia is also limited by the potential article size. It therefore can not include all relevant information, but can refer to other web sites where more information is available.
3. Wikipedia is limited by copyright as to how much information it can make use of from other sources.
4. The most comprehensive source of information on the toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease is on the links provided. By linking to those sites rather than copying all of the information from it, the article enables references and more detailed information for those that want it, and is not in breach of copyright.
5. The links are not to a commercial web site. The web site does not sell anything at all. So it is plainly erroneous to describe it as SPAM.
6. Without links to the other web site or other web sites besides that, the reader is prevented from obtaining more detailed information and all relevant scientific references. --Johnson MD 13:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: I count 12 links to the SAME website on an article whose contents are almost identical to what's already listed on Parkinson's disease. That's blatant Spamdexing in my book. Even if you're not selling anything, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for increasing your site's search engine rankings. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 13:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:V and possibly WP:OR. Would have been an A4 in the old days. Tevildo 13:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:V and possibly WP:OR. Suspect Johnson MD is a sockpuppet of General Tojo, and this page exists only to further promote his site. Debate of this topic has lead to semi-protection of the parkinson's disease page which means GT is unable to post there with a new account--PaulWicks 16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
1. The web site is not mine. So I am not Spamdexing, and until I read your link did not even know what it was.
2. The suggestion that the information lacks verifiability is obviously a false one. The information via the links it refers to provides full references of published scientific literature. Therefore the suggestion that it fails WP:V and possibly WP:OR is plainly wrong.
3. Toxicity is a rapidly ongoing area with entirely distinct subjects within that area - one for each toxic substance. The information and web sites for each subject will alter independently for each subject. For example, when new research becomes available concerning manganese toxicity, a different web site and references will be inevitably linked only to manganese. The links used at the outset are only what is used at the outset and will inevitably change.
4. What is the alternative ? - no link to further information and references, or only one link for each toxin which soon becomes out of date, as a better link will become available for some of the toxins ?
5. Is the purpose of Wikipedia providing information for those that want it, or preventing the availability of information solely due to the possibility of the alteration of search engine rankings for a site that does not even sell anything ? --Johnson MD 14:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If your motives are genuine (we see an awful lot of Spamdexing around here, hence the paranoia) then there's no need for a separate article when you could be contributing to Parkinson's disease instead and not over-promoting a single link as an external reference. I've also just noticed that http://p4.forumforfree.com/parkinsons.html is already listed on Parkinson's disease, so regardless, your article is redundant on two counts. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 14:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Begin list
    1. The Parkinson's Disease site has been repeatedly vandalised. The toxic section has also had large parts of it randomly deleted. It has also been proposed in discussionson the Parkinson's Disease site that, as the page is well over the required size that subjects (such as symptoms and toxicity) be taken out on to other pages, so that only a brief summary can remain on the Parkinson's Disease page. This is one of the reasons for doing it here.
    2. The Parkinson's Disease Forum (the original source of the information on the toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease) is listed on the web sites. However, it is very unlikely that this in itself is going to lead to people getting information about the toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease. It is also three links away from the actaul page for toxicity. Somebody would have to go to in order : Parkinson's Disease (Wikipedia) > see the tiny link > The Parkinson's Disease Forum > Parkinson's Disease > Toxic causes.
    3. Therefore, is the purpose of Wikipedia to make information more readily available, or to make information as difficult to get to, because the arguments against inclusion solely indicate the latter. --Johnson MD 15:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK. The page should stand only if it's properly linked to and from Parkinson's disease and the link is only used once. -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fork. The material presently in Parkinson's disease under "toxins" should be sourced directly to academically reliable sources. Arguments by Johnson MD totally fail to address the WP:V problems, as well as WP:RS issues. JFW | T@lk 16:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow. I'm am now so confused. What on Earth is going on here? If you haven't noticed http://p4.forumforfree.com/parkinsons.html is the first link under External Links in Parkinson's disease. I'm not medically knowledgeable, I'm just a WP:CVU and AfD regular who spotted what initially looked like some suspicious Spamdexing. How reliable is the information on that site? [1] looks rather well referenced at first, but is it pushing opinions not commonly accepted in the wider medical community? Could you please elaborate on how it fails WP:V? Cheers, Netsnipe ^(Talk) 17:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This website is a forum that reads more like a blog of one individual (as there is really only one individual who contributes on this forum). I haven't though fact checked all the contributions on this forum, though it probably wouldn't be too hard to verify, as it does mention some published findings. In any event, the content in this article would be strengthened with citations from the literature rather than a link to a one-man forum. Andrew73 17:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wow. I got suckered good by Johnson MD. First time ever encountering a sock puppet = ). Thanks to PaulWicks and Andrew73 for spotting him! Hmmm...I think I need to design a new barnstar for you guys since a suitable one doesn't seem to exist. The Baker Street Irregulars barnstar for services rendered unmasking sock puppets! -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 17:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as linkspam and POV fork. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, if POV could be removed. --Sunholm(talk) 22:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rehabilitate and Keep -- see the edit I just performed? All I had to do in order to find a {{fact}} for this article is search google for "Maneb Parkinsons Entrez" and I found PMID 12428734. Considering that the subject of the article could actually be supported and the article improved, why hide the topic? Heathhunnicutt 23:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a section duplicated from the main article, Parkinson's disease, except with the addition of links to this editor's forum. If anything should be rehabilitated, it should be the main article, not this fork. Andrew73 13:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this adverspam -- MrDolomite 05:25, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's UnChristian. Toxins don't cause Parkinson's Disease. God created Parkinson's Disease in order to punish us for our sins. Hallalujah, praise the Lord. --Bio Doc 14:17, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bio Doc is a suspected of sockpuppet of General Tojo -- Netsnipe ^(Talk) 09:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --WS 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References (from talk page)

How can one scientific reference for Paraquat / Maneb on mice possibly be better than 18 scientific references on Paraquat an Maneb and a full analysis of those references ? --Physio 15:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said! Bridgeman's website has very little besides his own contributions, as Andrew notes. What he has done is something like a literature review of his topic. However, he's gone very broad-brush in his review, attempting, for example, to say something about any toxin that produces a symptom bearing some resemblance to PD. For each toxin he cites only one article. In a literature review for a peer-reviewed journal this would not be acceptable, since it's too easy to pick and choose among the literature for work that supports a particular viewpoint. Bridgeman has a particular and not widely shared view of PD pathology, and he has selected his articles to support that viewpoint. Since his invention, dopavite, is based upon that viewpoint, that's expected. His website looks impressive to a layman, but it's shallow and very wide. He's really not critically reviewed any of the articles, either, as one would expect in a solid literature review, but has mostly clipped and pasted. His expertise is very open to question in my mind, especially given his hyperbolic claims. --Dan 15:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, also: the "content" on the site linked seems to just regurgitate either copyrighted articles or material already on Wikipedia. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 15:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even particuarly thorough. Rotenone was thought to be causative on the basis of an animal study involving megadoses which induced parkinson-like symptoms and also lewy body pathology. However the family on whom the human model was based were subsequently shown not to have been poisoned with an organophsophate but what was in fact liquid halperidol. I know he likes to make out that we're all idiots but it's more of a case of not wanting to waste my time talking with a troll.--PaulWicks 15:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is primarily meant to enable people to keep up to date with Parkinson's Disease. It is by far the best means of doing that world wide. It is a news source rather than a Forum. It uses the word Forum, but that is solely to enable follow ups on any particular item. It is not meant as a parky social club which is what most PD Forums are. Virtually all of it are other people's work. I don't comment unless asked to because I don't believe in imposing my views on it. Why should I slant what is contained in published abstracts. For every study included, I read twenty times more. It all doesn't constitute 1% of what I know.

2. I have summarised all relevant work on toxicity- some absolutely convincing, some, with the use of reasoning, strongly implying. My work is not based on toxicity at all. I doubt if toxicity plus genetics plus trauma explain 10% of cases of Parkinson's Disease.

3. Neither you nor anyone else here has put up even one sientific arguement that opposes what I have written. You're not up to it. I see conclusions, but a complete lack of facts in support of what you've written. I'd run sientific rings around you because you have such a novices knowledge of the subject.

4. Poor Wimpy. Fresh out of college yet he thinks he knows the subject. Delusion is a terrible thing. See you soon Wimpy.

--General Tojo 4 17:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you a GCSE / A-level science teacher? --PaulWicks 17:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong Wimpy, and I don't forgive you. Do you knowhow many people there are with the same name. Schools are useless. I wouldn't last a week as a school teacher before they dismissed me. You'll have to come up with some other crackpot theory. --General Tojo 9 10:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:V and WP:OR and is formatted horribly. WP:NOT a free web host. And I know this isn't a reason, but Tojo's boldface comments are extremely irritating. — getcrunk what?! 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't GetDrunk being rather hypocritical by writing in boldface ? --General Tojo 9 10:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 10:35, 6 July 2006 edit General Tojo 9 (talk \| contribs) 2 edits →[[Toxic causes of Parkinson's Disease]]: General Tojo ← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:38, 6 July 2006 edit undo General Tojo 9 (talk \| contribs) 2 edits Hypocrisy ? Next edit →
Line 69:		Line 69:

	'''Delete per nom. Fails [[WP:V]] and [[WP:OR]] and is formatted horribly. [[WP:NOT]] a free web host. And I know this isn't a reason, but Tojo's boldface comments are extremely irritating. — <font face="tahoma" COLOR="#C11B17">[[User:Getcrunk\|getcrunk]]</font> [[User talk:Getcrunk\|<FONT face="tahoma" COLOR="#3366ff">what?!</FONT>]] 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)'''		'''Delete per nom. Fails [[WP:V]] and [[WP:OR]] and is formatted horribly. [[WP:NOT]] a free web host. And I know this isn't a reason, but Tojo's boldface comments are extremely irritating. — <font face="tahoma" COLOR="#C11B17">[[User:Getcrunk\|getcrunk]]</font> [[User talk:Getcrunk\|<FONT face="tahoma" COLOR="#3366ff">what?!</FONT>]] 20:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)'''

			'''Isn't GetDrunk being rather hypocritical by writing in boldface ?''' --[[User:General Tojo 9\|General Tojo 9]] 10:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)