Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skumin 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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Skumin syndrome[edit]

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

Only citations that could be used to establish notability are primary studies from the 1980's or earlier that have since received little attention. While there are lots of citations in the article, many are unrelated to the topic and don't establish notability (example 1 example 2). Others directly relate to the topic but are sketchy and/or commercial links (example 1 example 2). There are no mentions in any standard texts like the DSM. The interest in this subject appears to be primarily fringe; for example a blog is used for several of the citations. a13ean (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's not possible to have a neutral, properly-sourced article on this topic because the only (non-OR) sources are fringey - subject has not really been covered by the mainstream. How could we have an article on a medical topic which doesn't have a single WP:MEDRS? bobrayner (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Listings about this syndrome at Google Scholar have a pathetic one or two citations;[1] clearly this is not a mainstream theory. At Google itself the top two hits are both for this Wikipedia article. The article suffers from Wikipedia:Citation overkill, but all those citations do not establish this as a real thing. --MelanieN (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment May be better known as cardioprosthetic psychopathological syndrome; see [2][3] May be further sources in Russian. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources on Pubmed, quite obviously something out of Eastern Europe that never quite made it into mainstream medicine. It would be suitable for discussion if there was even a small number of secondary sources to support its notability. If you want my honest opinion, this is nothing less than postperfusion syndrome with a different name. JFW | T@lk 08:50, 23 April 2012 (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.