Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cure for diabetes mellitus type 1
- 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 with main article. Maxim(talk) 01:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cure for diabetes mellitus type 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
I came across this article while working through AlexNewArtBot's output of possible conflicts of interest in new articles.
I can understand a desire to centrally locate research into a disease or condition, but I have concerns. First, it's an invitation for spamlinks, and has the potential to become a serious COI battleground. More importantly, I think it's dangerous for Wikipedia to have an article titled "cure for disease X", despite the medical disclaimer. Our intentions may be good, but those intentions can turn around and bite us in the ass. I'm also wondering why this couldn't be covered in the Diabetes mellitus type 1 article in a "research into remedies" or some other benign title.
At the very least, it should be renamed – I've struggled to come up with a better name, but can't think of one – and claims of comprehensiveness should be removed. I'm uneasy about it, so I bring it here for discussion. KrakatoaKatie 02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as nominator. - KrakatoaKatie 02:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Much medical research is focused on cures, so I see no problem reflecting that fact. It looks like it needs to be integrated into the mail page with some reorganization of the sections. There's certainly room in the main page for it. MarkBul 05:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree this article should be merged with the main Diabetes Mellitus article under a Treatments/ search for cures section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.4.1.41 (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. First, because this particular core issue would develop into a long article – too long to be merged as a section in another article.
Second, once the medical disclaimer is there, this article has exactly the same chance of "turning around and biting us in the ass" as any other Wikipedia article on a medical issue. No one would seriously expect Wikipedia to render a cure to diabetes, so no legal or medical issue here.
Third, I really think the current name is good. There are at least two treatments listed in the article (the Edmonton Protocol and the stem cell treatment in Brazil), which already have reversed diabetes T1 in real patients, in the real world; So the wording "Cure for diabetes type 1" is not at all inaccurate.
Fourth, about the "spamlinks" and COI issues, that certainly is not what the article is meant for, and I, as all other serious Wikipedia editors (not to mention those particular users who actually have the condition), would remove any such unwelcome edits, just as they would be removed from any other article in WP. The possibility of stupid users doing stupid things should not, in any way, be a condition on the existence of a smart article edited by smart users. A.R. 15:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep but move (rename) to "Research for cure for diabetes mellitus type 1", since there is no cure as yet. There will be some who criticize this as a "catchall", or "potentially unmaintainable", but if it's an article that is added to every time there is some news about the search for a cure, it's a keeper. That's the strength of Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia that can be updated as often as necessary. Mandsford 17:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 21:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strip down to shorter size and merge with diabetes mellitus type 1. It should be easy to summarise the content in a few sentences, with 3-4 references. I suggest that hypotheses should only be included if there is at least some experimental work going on to test their tenability. JFW | T@lk 08:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge with main article. Bulbous 19:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this is what the main articles are for. DGG (talk) 19:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and perhaps rename to something like "Research into cures for diabetes mellitus type 1". I see no reason to shorten the article. There's a lot of material out there about the various cures and research into cures. Whether or not anyone has been "cured" yet depends on one's definition of "cure" -- transplant patients for example can certainly be considered "cured" according to some very reasonable definitions. Possible future spam/vandalism doesn't seem like a good reason to delete a page. --Coppertwig 22:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. The main Diabetes mellitus type 1 article has a subheading "Curing Type 1 Diabetes", which then has links to pages of more detailed material. That seems a better way of handling this material, although "Treating..." may be better than "Curing..." there. Bondegezou 16:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- merge (bits and pieces) agree that this isn't really needing it's own entry. I agree with the concerns with opening cans of worms re. folk medicine, herbs, SPAM links, etc... that will proliferate around it. Droliver 01:50, 21 September 2007 (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.