Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brittle diabetes

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 merge to Diabetes mellitus type 1. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brittle diabetes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Brittle diabetes is not a subtype of diabetes but rather a characterisation of its control. The current article tries to make it out as if it is a disease entity. The concept can easily be discussed in the context of glycemic control in other diabetes-related articles. Delete. JFW | T@lk 21:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had no idea related articles (can) covered this. If some content can be salvaged for use there, fine by me. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The term "brittle diabetes" is a colloquialism that has not been formally defined (unlike "brittle asthma", which has formal diagnostic criteria). It just obscures poor control. (PMID 19649386 seems to make an attempt to define it formally, but that's the only thing I can find.) Most "brittle type 1s" have significant lifestyle issues. JFW | T@lk 06:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- doi:10.1093/qjmed/hcr010 defines "brittle diabetes" as type 1 diabetes with recurrent DKA. It appears that there is no particular pathophysiological mechanism, and that it probably is not a distinct phenotype (as brittle often becomes non-brittle over time). I think this is all best dealt with on the type 1 page, and am prepared to merge the important content there. JFW | T@lk 06:27, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Diabetes mellitus type 1 if anything useful can be salvaged. Otherwise, redirect. Possible search term. No need for an AfD here. -Atmoz (talk) 16:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~— and perhaps rename? There may be concern here for lengthening the Type I article. This article, Brittle diabetes, covers material that can be referred to from the Type I article, and can keep the Type I article from becoming too long. How about one of the other names, "labile diabetes"? Perhaps this is a better name for the article? This kind of article does not have to be a subtype per se. Any information that can stand alone notably in its own article is better off in its own article than cluttering and lengthening longer articles on the subject. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 02:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. It also occurs to me that this term, "Brittle diabetes", applies to Type II sufferers as well as to victims of Type I. Merging this content into the Type I article might not be appropriate on this count.
- No, there is no source that supports the existence of "brittle type 2". Have you got evidence that the concept "labile diabetes" is in current use? All these facts should be discussed in context, which seems a good reason for lengthening other articles. By the way, people with diabetes are not "sufferers" or "victims". JFW | T@lk 08:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that last part to my neuropathies <g>. If the result of this discussion is that the concept of Brittle or Labile diabetes is not notable enough to warrant its own article, then it's probably not notable enough to merge into the Type I article. It was the brief notation in the subject article about the term's application to both Type I and II that I was addressing. JFW, I'll go with whatever you want to do on this. If it's notable enough to merge into Type I, I'm good with that. Whatever you want, because you appear to know a whole lot more about it than I do. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 19:48, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Type I article. Even if it's not used professionally, our readers will look for the term, and there is no harm in merging sourced material and redirecting it. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This information should be merged into "Diabetes mellitus type 1", perhaps into a "Classification" section. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:20, 23 May 2011 (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.