Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Magnetism (neurological sign)

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. The consensus is that there are insufficient sources to build an encyclopedia article rather than a medical dictionary entry. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetism (neurological sign)

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

Possible hoax. The editor who tagged this as a hoax wrote on the talk page:

“

The only Google books hits that I can find are echoes of this article. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

”

My Google Books search for sources did not return any substantial results. I will withdraw this nomination if sources can be found to verify the existence of Magnetism (neurological sign). Cunard (talk) 07:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a borderline hoax. All the legitimate sources I found don't use "magnetism" and "neurology" in the same context. Erpert (let's talk about it) 10:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it's not a hoax, the lack of references shows it is indisputably non-notable. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a hoax It's certainly not a hoax; see the KANNER scale. I don't know whether there are enough sources to justify a whole article on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn per the fact that the topic is not a hoax. I do not know if this is notable though, so I am Neutral. Cunard (talk) 05:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, whether withdrawn or not, whether an intentional hoax or not. The basic statement of the page, that there is a clinical diagnosis in which the patient's body moves along with the physician's hand, is patent nonsense (I'm saying this as a professional neuroscientist). It simply does not happen, and defies basic laws of biology and physics. I looked at the KANNER link above, and it has nothing to do with this page. If sourcing can be found (lotsa luck!), then that's another story, but absent sourcing, the page should be deleted. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep since nomination is withdrawn. If someone wishes to file another afd, it should be done based on these other concerns. Dew Kane (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I withdrew the nomination, I am uncertain that this article should remain in Wikipedia (the arguments that the lack of sources makes this non-notable are convincing), so I changed my delete nomination to a neutral vote. I request that the reviewing admin not close the debate as "speedy keep" or "keep" due to my withdrawal of the deletion nomination. Cunard (talk) 08:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On point of procedure, a nominator can change their !vote to anything they like. But if there are other editors who, in good faith, have recommended delete, then the debate remains open. If everyone says keep, and the nom says "OK, keep then", that's when a speedy keep comes into play. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that this is how the AfD process works. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I don't believe the subject to be notable enough to meet our criteria. I'm inclined to agree with Tryptofish, above - There's some fantastical stuff being claimed, without the fantastic sourcing to back it up. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 12:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is too specialized a detail to ever merit its own article. Wikipedia is not a medical dictionary or textbook.Novangelis (talk) 05:49, 27 March 2010 (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.