Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of allergies

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. postdlf (talk) 16:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of allergies[edit]

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

You can be allergic to any protein so what is the point of this page? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In any case this articles title is incorrect - it should be "List of allergens". But as "Doc James" has pointed out such a list is practically infinite so should deleted as just a list of "stuff". Roger (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it has references. Inclusion as per WP:LIST. The rest of the articles and allergens will need to be populated and sourced if it is kept. --Visik (talk) 07:14, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is like suggesting we should create a list of human. That one would be more finite than this one though as it would only contain 6 to 7 billion pages.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We DO have a list of humans, it is called Lists of people. And we have dozens of sublists within that list. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if it's okay for me to vote. It is useful to about 200 visitors each day. List of caves will never be complete either, but contains lots of the world's major caves. This list contains the most common allergies. It allows visitors to learn what treatments, reactions etc. are related to which allergies, and gives a good overview. Whether it's called List of allergies or List of allergens, it need only contain those that are most common. I will gladly participate in the expansion of the existing items, and will add a column for images if needed. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're certainly welcome to vote, though it's not so much a vote as a recommendation - after 7 days or so, an admin will come around and review the discussion to see if there's consensus one way or another. The bold "Keep" or "Delete" or what have you helps give an overall feel for the debate, but the content of the comments is important as well, and a recommendation with a rationale (as you've provided) is more helpful than just a bold word. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. I do hope the article remains. I'm not attached to it because I started it and put work into it. It's just that I think it's useful to visitors. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has many references and is a well established article. Useful to many people. It will never be perfect. SilverSoul91911 (talk) 12:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well-referenced list on a notable topic. No objection to a rename - and, if it is indeed supposed to be only the most common allergens, we might consider changing the name to "List of Common Allergens" instead. The complimentary "List of Rare Allergens" would follow, though we'd then have to figure criteria for Common and Rare. Is there some sort of medical criteria or classification that might come into play? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm sure those included in the standard battery are probably common, and include pet dander, eggs, insect bites, shellfish, peanuts & others, corn, wheat gluten, dust, mold, pollen, etc... Dru of Id (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep seems to be a reasonable way to list many common allergens/allergies, and would appear to perfectly fulfill the reason we have "list of.." articles on Wikipedia to begin with. If you think it needs renaming, that should be taken up on the talk page, not AFD. The fact that you can be allergic to any protein is not a valid criteria for deletion, thus the nom itself is fatally flawed, thus the request for a speedy keep. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Falls under WP:PURPLIST.—RJH (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:20, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly defined list with inclusion criteria of a notable topic. Lugnuts (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts exactly. its incompleteness is acceptable, not a reason for deletion. (added common tag for "dynamic lists")Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination asks about the point of the list. One point is to assist navigation or browsing of our articles about notable allergies such as hay fever, cat allergy, penicillin allergy, &c. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A list of most common allergies makes a lot of sense. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Change Instead of "most common" allergens, I think a list of allergen-specific IgE tests would be more useful. Anybody can be allergic to anything, but it's the IgE mediated response that makes it a true allergy. Listing the available tests would be useful for patients who are wondering if they are truely allergic to something.Rknight (talk) 19:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not sure if I would agree with adding "common" to the name, as there isn't a reason you shouldn't include lesser known allergens as well. Most people would find the current title as the one that makes the most sense, even if it isn't exactly accurate. At the worst, List of allergens and this would become a redirect. Again, more of a talk page topic, but since it was brought up.... Dennis Brown (talk) 23:04, 12 April 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.