Template:Did you know nominations/Hair-brushing syndrome
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: rejected by — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Withdrawn
Hair-brushing syndrome[edit]
- ... that wearing polyester, touching balloons, and brushing your hair are all potentially fatal?
- Reviewed: Kathleen Simon, Viscountess Simon
Created by Nikkimaria (talk). Self nom at 21:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment This seems to be an article for which MEDRS would apply. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed but there are no journal sources as of yet, so the news sources are the best currently available (to my knowledge, at least). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mind if I ping Sandy or another Med editor, as I'm not familiar with their guidelines in such cases? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sure - maybe someone'll have an idea of where to find more sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Alright, pinged here and here. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Neither supported by MEDRS nor convincingly reported in the popular press. Certainly should not be a DYK without better sourcing. -- Scray (talk) 04:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hey Scray, what do you mean by "no[t] convincingly reported"? And what does MEDRS suggest when there are no journals available? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- MEDRS says (paragraph 1 of lede): "Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." I say "unconvincing" because the media reports do not provide a link to a reliable source, and simply refer to "doctors" without verifying credentials. There's no peer review evident. It's a biomedical claim with NO reliable evidence. -- Scray (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- The sources used are reliable third-party published sources, and as far as I can tell they do reflect all that is known (which isn't much) about this syndrome. Again, what provisions does MEDRS make for instances where, because of the novelty or rarity of the condition, no journal articles exist? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, I should have been more explicit about that: The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles. The cited sources are completely unreliable for encyclopedic content that would suggest people are at risk for dying from common acts such as wearing polyester, touching a balloon, or brushing their hair - that's just irresponsible unless supported by reliable biomedical sources. The evidence provided is even weaker than single case reports published in peer-reviewed biomedical literature, and we discourage incorporation into WP of claims from those. -- Scray (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- The sources used are reliable third-party published sources, and as far as I can tell they do reflect all that is known (which isn't much) about this syndrome. Again, what provisions does MEDRS make for instances where, because of the novelty or rarity of the condition, no journal articles exist? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- MEDRS says (paragraph 1 of lede): "Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge." I say "unconvincing" because the media reports do not provide a link to a reliable source, and simply refer to "doctors" without verifying credentials. There's no peer review evident. It's a biomedical claim with NO reliable evidence. -- Scray (talk) 04:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Comment. Under the current title, this article does not cover a notable subject. Unusual cases only reported in the popular press do not make for good encyclopedia articles. In this case, the medical team are speculating about the mechanism, but it seems like an extreme form of Hair-grooming syncope (which Nikkimaria created yesterday but has some backup in medical sources). I am very much inclined to send the current article for AFD on grounds of notability. JFW | T@lk 06:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yup. AfD it - and point out to the contributor responsible that citing multiple sources which in turn state that they got the story from a source already cited isn't a way to demonstrate notability. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Since it's pretty clear this article won't be able to incorporate sources that don't exist, withdrawing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
