- 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. MBisanz talk 03:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Myopia Myth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
The article is a WP:POVFORK from Myopia, promoting and arguing the ideas from the book Myopia Myth. Ronz (talk) 18:48, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 19:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Valueable and Enriching The book is written on the therory that close work can cause myopia. This is a valid scientific theory and the book is a major contributor to it and should be included in wikipedia under a distinct article. The book and it's theory ia an "Alternative theoretical formulations" please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 20.1.18 decision made to allow this kind of content on wikipedia.-Junsun (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clear delete: Lacks notability by any Wikipedian set of criteria. I do not see evidence of non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable secondary sources. The article does cite some such reliable sources, but they discuss causes of myopia in general (dismissing, among others, "close work" as a cause). They do not mention, directly or indirectly, "myopia myth", the author in question, or his claims, and as such do not establish notability. MastCell Talk 19:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm a little confused; is this article supposed to be about the book, or about the theory proposed by it? Clearly it is hard to have an article about the former without at least going into some depth about the latter, but the article as it stands enters into arguments about the validity of the content of the book using references that are not about the book, but rather about aspects of the theory that is espoused by the book. This seems to me to be a clear case of original synthesis. That said, I believe a valid article could be written about the book, and that this article with the original synthesis removed would be a good base for that article. There are sources that have been written in direct response to the book in question, including some scholarly articles (e.g. [1]) that directly and explicity refute claims made by this book. It seems, also, that it would be reasonable to have pages about the theory that myopia may be caused environmentally (which there is plenty of scholarly discussion of) or that pinhole glasses are useful for treating myopia (also widely discussed). The only problem with this article as it stands is that it brings all of these concepts together, in a single article, which is not appropriate because of the synthesis issues. JulesH (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can see this article makes only passing mention of Rehm's book, as one of three sources suggesting that spectacle use should be avoided. Taemyr (talk) 06:39, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Being swamped with unencyclopedic content is not a reason for deletion, but the failure of the book to attract significant coverage from reliable sources is (WP:BK). Mere passing mentions do not provide the coverage necessary before we can write a good article on the topic. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure of what to make of this. The book is cited by the American Journal of Optometry 1 and the association is listed with the Dept of Health and Human services 2. --J.Mundo (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article is not considered a "Content Fork" of the myopia page for two reasons. I quote from the Content fork article: "Sometimes, when an article gets long (see Wikipedia:Article size), a section of the article is made into its own article, and the handling of the subject in the main article is condensed to a brief summary.". On the Myopia page, the sections about causes of myopia and prevention are long enough already and adding another view and explaining the opposing sides to that view in detail with a collection of reliable sources would make the section and the whole article on Myopia excessively confusing. The second reason is that the theory that myopia is preventable presented in the book on Myopia Myth is quite distinct from consensus and thus it does not belong on the consensus page on Myopia in any great detail. People looking for mainstream view on Myopia should not labor through details about a theoretical proposal that is still being tested. However, for those people who want to read more about the Myopia Myth point of view, they should have a chance to do so in a distinct page.
- Article Enriches Wikipedia Lastly, I think one very important function of an encyclopedia like wikipedia is to host a collection of well supported information, even when it covers a scientific theory under debate. A lot of the over 1,000,000 articles on wikipedia are "stubs" and/or cover things much less notable than the article on Myopia Myth but no editor even bottered to challenge their notability because they are so unimportant to catch any attention. If every article and "stub" less notable than Myopia Myth is removed from wikipedia, Wikipedia might never reach the millionth article mark that it did. An article about a book that is not a bestseller takes up very little space on wikipeida and is as justified to exist as all the articles that are "stubs". At least this article's existense has sparked some immediate interest which indicates it's potential value for coverage. Having an article that follows an actively researched area of science from a neutral point of view provides valueable information and enriches Wikipedia. (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)--Junsun (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that the article under discussion is Myopia Myth, not Environmental causes of Myopia. There is a substantial difference. Taemyr (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Topic has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. -Atmoz (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All those hard working scientist, published so many research papers on the alternative theory of environmentally caused myopia which Rehm proposed. None of them seems satisfactory? Here is an independent source that analyzes the book: [2] another source I proposed is the reviews on Amazon.com. Under the reasoning of those who want to delete this article, wouldn't most articles about specific local high schools and middle schools be considered original research? I don't think many of those articles have any references beside original researchat all.--Junsun (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Attention: Extensive revisions have being made to the article to remediate the issues noted in the talk page. Please read it again before commenting.--Junsun (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's in many ways worse off now, since it's currently an article on the neologism "The Myopia Myth". Taemyr (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - plainly non-notable LeContexte (talk) 17:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even the sources cited in support of the theory fail to mention the book, which surely is a good indication that it is non-notable. The theory itself may be notable (whether or not it is correct), but that would surely belong on the myopia page, and does not need a page of its own. Anaxial (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Myopia as the title is a useful search term and we have numerous useful citations here. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep or Merge to Myopia as per Colonel Warden and Junsun there are many numerous useful citations here, meeting WP:N. Ikip (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please identify some of them on the talk page here. Multiple editors have pointed out that the article doesn't have such references. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaken. The objections to the citations above are that they do not support an article on the book/title Myopia Myth and, having looked around, I tend to agree that this is not good as a separate topic. But the citations regarding research upon the development of myopia in children are useful content when considered for the main article upon Myopia. Merger is therefore the appropriate way of saving the best of this material per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what I'm mistaken about. I was and still am requesting that the links be identified. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaken in your claims about the statements of other editors. An obvious example of useful content which should be preserved per WP:PRESERVE is the first citation - an account of a study of the progression of myopia in children. Such content would be useful in the myopia article, irrespective of the myth concept, which is a side-issue. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That study is primary research and attempting to using it in a general article on myopia would very likely foul WP:OR and WP:MEDRS. Myopia is a well-studied topic that has an abundance of good secondary sources (reviews, textbooks). No need to cite individual studies on a couple of hundred school children. I don't see any citations that would improve myopia. Colin°Talk 16:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Primary research does not help with the notability concerns, nor has anyone pointed out any better references. Further, I've already brought up the issue in Myopia that the article is relying too heavily upon such references, in violation of NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I gave that citation because it was the first and shall return to it. But if one inspects others, we find good tertiary sources such as footnote 8 which is a general account of Myopia provided by the American Optometric Association. It seems quite wrong to claim that such a source is of no value to us. Note also that this source says, inter alia, "The exact cause of nearsightedness is unknown...". Since this reputable source indicates that the matter is still uncertain, it seems appropriate to cite examples of good recent research which indicate the lines of current research and the provisional findings. So, given that our policy is to preserve useful material of this sort, deletion is inappropriate. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you really feel certain references might be useful on myopia, then copy them to the talk page of myopia and see if someone wants to use them. WP:PRESERVE is about keeping article content, not citations. I can find a whole bunch of (almost certain better) citations my merely searching PubMed for recent reviews on myopia. Keeping citations is not a reason to keep an article or insist on a merge. Colin°Talk 23:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Primary research does not help with the notability concerns, nor has anyone pointed out any better references. Further, I've already brought up the issue in Myopia that the article is relying too heavily upon such references, in violation of NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That study is primary research and attempting to using it in a general article on myopia would very likely foul WP:OR and WP:MEDRS. Myopia is a well-studied topic that has an abundance of good secondary sources (reviews, textbooks). No need to cite individual studies on a couple of hundred school children. I don't see any citations that would improve myopia. Colin°Talk 16:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaken in your claims about the statements of other editors. An obvious example of useful content which should be preserved per WP:PRESERVE is the first citation - an account of a study of the progression of myopia in children. Such content would be useful in the myopia article, irrespective of the myth concept, which is a side-issue. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know what I'm mistaken about. I was and still am requesting that the links be identified. --Ronz (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You are mistaken. The objections to the citations above are that they do not support an article on the book/title Myopia Myth and, having looked around, I tend to agree that this is not good as a separate topic. But the citations regarding research upon the development of myopia in children are useful content when considered for the main article upon Myopia. Merger is therefore the appropriate way of saving the best of this material per WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please identify some of them on the talk page here. Multiple editors have pointed out that the article doesn't have such references. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing contributor Page has undergone extensive edits (several dozen) since this article has been put up for deletion. Ikip (talk) 17:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the edits have resolved the WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:N concerns. --Ronz (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
New references I found these refeences that give overviews of the book and Rehm's theory and concept of Myopia Myth. [3][4][5][6][7] At least some of them are suitable to be used as references on the section about Myopia Myth#Rehm's Book.--Junsun (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how these links to listings could be used as references in any way. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename. Push this article to be about the book and only summarize what the myth is to remove OR concerns. Numerous sources cover the book just fine and it seems to be the center of the myth itself so the myth can be summarized in an article about the book and criticism are usually a part of book reviews. Is "the myth" that notable? Perhaps but for now show the relation to the book first then consider if a seperate myth article is warranted or if even a subsection on myopia is needed. The med project can be helpful when it comes to this issue as well. -- Banjeboi 11:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. In sufficient reliable sources from which to build an article of any size. A few reliable sources have been found that mention the book but that isn't enough. The title is not a useful search term to be worth keeping (plain old "myopia" finds the WP page just fine). Citations not worth keeping IMO, but the talk page is the place for those if anyone disagrees. Colin°Talk 23:36, 27 January 2009 (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.