Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Impossible 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. Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Impossible syndrome

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This topic does not actually seem to meet WP:GNG. There is only one source that discusses the topic in detail - the one in the article - and it's a non-WP:MEDRS case report. The vast majority of search results are coincidental "impossible syndrome" and most don't even pertain to medicine. The original paper is cited several times on Google Scholar but a) the vast majority are passing mentions and b) citations probably don't count as "independent sources". Besides, since there was only one case in recorded history any conclusion would be fairly speculative. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is basically a neologism coined for a syndrome described in one person. I can't find any sources beyond the original description that seriously discuss this as a medical condition. I don't think the topic meets WP:GNG, and deletion is recommended at WP:NEOLOGISM. Ajpolino (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, one article (a non-MEDRS case report) describing one case in 1989 does not a notable condition make (in fact, may not even define a condition at all). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, searched for this term at websites for Harvard Medical School, John Hopkins Medicine, and the Mayo Clinic. No results for this terminology. Also no search results for MedlinePlus.gov, which is the online National Library of Medicine for the US Government. — Maile (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at WT:MED. This is an exaggeration of a case study into a syndrome. Vaticidalprophet 22:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one being who had this was stillborn, thus nothing more than an autopsy could be done. I thought in the very least for a condition to be had, the subject had to be living for an examinable period. Nate • (chatter) 04:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Undecided~~ Sorry for that guys, since it is snowballing, but it seems that the paper announcing the syndrome [1] has been cited 18 times. Is it a syndrome or a case-report, it is not for us to judge. Had the citing articles been 50 or more, I would be leaning towards keep. Now I am undecided. Cinadon36 07:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't anything relevant in PubMed. I don't think it even meets the (low bar) definition of "neologism". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:59, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per others. The authors write "We therefore propose that this array of abnormalities represents a new syndrome. For those who like acronyms, how about the IMPOSSIBLE syndrome? (Imperforate anus, polydactyly, sex anomaly, situs inversus, branchial, laryngeal, epiglotis)." Cinadon36, there is no doubt the cited paper is a case report, for that is the kind of literature it is. That's not something Wikipedians need to judge. For judging if the medical community have agreed it is a notable syndrome, we'd expect the secondary literature to have chapters and articles about it. I've looked at some of the citations and they are similar case reports where the authors cite this paper as an example of a case of bifid epiglottis or chondrodysplasia or whatever, but I have not found any that used the term "impossible syndrome".

One other case report proposing yet another syndrome here refers to that case as "Fraser-Jequier-Chen syndrome". Searching Google or PubMed for that name finds nothing other than references back to that one paper. Here the authors have chosen not to use the original proposed name (because, let's be serious, it isn't a serious name) and more professionally created a name for this using the case report authors surnames. But they did so merely to refer to the case, and not to report other cases of that "syndrome".

In other words, this proposed syndrome is being cited in the primary literature as a single case report with features the authors wish to compare their own different proposed syndromes or cases against. So, in thirty years, we have no evidence this was ever more than an unfortunate combinations of defects in one stillborn baby. -- Colin°^Talk 11:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convinced. Delete Cinadon36 12:38, 25 November 2021 (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.