186:, but this article needs work. Quite a few (if not most) medical diagnoses are initially based on subjective symptoms, and often the subjective symptoms lead to objective findings. Some conditions are diagnoses of exclusion after other causes are ruled out; this is a good article to aggregate diagnoses of exclusion for subjective conditions.
163:
The subject matter is mostly valid but there are at least two problems with this article. First, the title represents a relatively extreme POV and is somewhat pejorative (especially in the lumping of factitious illness into this category of conditions!)-- this guy is not a doctor most of would expect
305:
It's worth noting that after spending a few minutes entering this article seven months ago the author hasn't done any further work on it and neither - apart from a bit of tidying and a lot of tagging - has anyone else despite its obvious faults. Could this because it's not worth bothering with, for
254:
commonality of certain symptoms to propose a new notion in medicine. The citations it would need would citations about that idea, not about the various symptoms. Right now that seems totally lacking, and the tenuous coherence of the ideas suggests that they do not come from some outside source.
152:. (Sorry, Jfdwolff.) While the article right now isn't the greatest, I think it's an interesting way to group things like this together. As for headache, that's something that can easily be adjusted in the article to mention how there may be objective causes for the headache in some cases.
253:
Adding references doesn't make it non-original. I'm seeing this sort of comment all over the place, but the fact is that real research papers are full of references. I'ts what they do with the references that makes the difference. This article is trying to synthesize certain ideas about the
286:
but I do not really trust using ghits on GS as a test when one is searching on a particular phrase. The subject may be notable, and referred to many times, but the wording of the article title may be wrong. Not that I would keep this trivial attempt at diagnostic
243:
I don't see any original research here, just a lack of references. Everything I see here could be easily referenced if someone took the time to do it. However, grouping the conditions together is probably an innovation as
Jfdwolff pointed out in the nomination.
214:
Lack of Google hits doesn't mean it's original research. More likely a neologism the author coined to describe the aggregation of the conditions into a
Knowledge (XXG) page. Perhaps "Medical conditions without objective findings" is more appropriate.
295:. This article should exist, but it needs to be clarified, expanded, and properly referenced. There are too many new "disorders" in medicine that lack an objective scientific basis. Don't even get me started on ADD/ADHD and "restless leg syndrome".
172:, and the three articles should be combined with a better explanation of the multiple perspectives and POVs with which they can be legitimately considered-- basically the same challenge posed by a good chronic fatigue syndrome article.
263:
Agreed. The lack of Ghits - especially on Google
Scholar - is compelling. There's no such thing as a notable academic idea that isn't referred to by anyone. It's how scholars keep their jobs. If no-one else refers to this topic then
125:
While most of the points in this article are valid, it is a complete innovation to group them together in this fashion. It is also clinically shortsighted to include common symptoms such as
118:
91:
86:
95:
78:
268:
So it is about as non-notable as you can get. If this was the name of a person rather than the name of an idea there would be nothing to discuss.
17:
310:
299:
272:
258:
248:
233:
219:
204:
190:
176:
156:
143:
60:
200:
per nom. No relevant Ghits for the phrase "Subjective medical condition" so it's OR or a neologism. Certainly not notable.
82:
325:
36:
74:
66:
324:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
169:
165:
164:
to be very successful at dealing with these patients. Second, the matter overlaps about 90% with
138:
54:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
296:
307:
269:
201:
173:
49:
134:
112:
255:
245:
230:
216:
187:
153:
129:
without a qualification that these may be secondary to other conditions.
126:
318:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
108:
104:
100:
52:, as raised in this debate, is not being established.
48:. Still absolutely no references have been provided.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
328:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
229:It's obviously original research.
24:
266:no-one else has ever heard of it!
306:the reasons Mangoe pointed out?
1:
75:Subjective medical conditions
67:Subjective medical conditions
345:
157:19:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
144:14:17, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
321:Please do not modify it.
61:10:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
311:16:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
300:14:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
273:20:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
259:18:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
249:18:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
234:17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
220:18:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
205:15:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
191:14:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
177:03:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
170:somatization disorder
166:somatoform disorder
141:
336:
323:
139:
116:
98:
57:
34:
344:
343:
339:
338:
337:
335:
334:
333:
332:
326:deletion review
319:
89:
73:
70:
55:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
342:
340:
331:
330:
314:
313:
303:
289:
288:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
237:
236:
223:
222:
208:
207:
194:
193:
180:
179:
160:
159:
133:elete please.
123:
122:
69:
64:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
341:
329:
327:
322:
316:
315:
312:
309:
304:
301:
298:
294:
291:
290:
285:
282:
281:
274:
271:
267:
262:
261:
260:
257:
252:
251:
250:
247:
242:
239:
238:
235:
232:
228:
225:
224:
221:
218:
213:
210:
209:
206:
203:
199:
196:
195:
192:
189:
185:
182:
181:
178:
175:
171:
167:
162:
161:
158:
155:
151:
148:
147:
146:
145:
142:
136:
132:
128:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
59:
58:
56:Daniel Bryant
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
320:
317:
292:
283:
265:
240:
226:
211:
197:
183:
149:
130:
124:
53:
45:
43:
31:
28:
302:MoodyGroove
297:MoodyGroove
287:medicine.
174:alteripse
241:Disagree
212:Disagree
127:headache
119:View log
92:protect
87:history
284:Delete
256:Mangoe
246:Dlodge
231:Mangoe
227:Delete
217:Dlodge
198:Delete
188:Dlodge
154:Ksheka
96:delete
46:delete
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
308:andy
293:Keep
270:andy
202:andy
184:Keep
168:and
150:Keep
140:T@lk
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
50:WP:V
135:JFW
117:– (
137:|
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
131:D
121:)
115:)
77:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.