Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sliding uncus 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. Jujutacular (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sliding uncus syndrome[edit]

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

This is an article about a medical neologism, paid for by the person who coined the term (see talk page). My searches show that the term has not been used by other authors raising serious WP:OR and WP:MEDRS concerns. SmartSE (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO plus serious WP:OR and WP:MEDRS concerns cited above. My knowledge of searching medical references is limited, but it's worth noting that Google Scholar shows exactly one hit for this term, and it's the paper published by the individual who paid for this article to be written [1]. — Brianhe (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Brianhe (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, conflict of interest by paid editor and questionable RS and OR as noted by others. Citobun (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have already disclosed my WP:COI as per Wikimedia Terms of Use. I request the page to be judged on its merit. This syndrome is a unique and important one because it undermines the basic concept known to neurology and thus is an important lesson to clinicians at all specialities. Mr RD 19:36, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mr RD (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Delete - This page should be judged on its merits, and not the original author's conflict of interest. That being said, I fully agree with the !votes made by SmartSE and Brianhe; specifically, the fact that the only result on Google Scholar is a paper published by the guy who paid for this article to be written shows that it's a classic case of WP:NEO. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:28, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ♔ MONARCH Talk to me 02:08, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON. This new diagnosis is too recently described to be a useful encyclopedia article. Bearian (talk) 21:12, 29 September 2015 (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.