Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Selective Sound Sensitivity

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 speedy redirect to misophonia in line with the redirect at selective sound sensitivity as suggested by RHaworth. I know I've voted in this AfD, so technically I'm not allowed, but rather than drag this term and an audiologist's name through the mud in a public AfD discussion, I think we can all safely agree that a redirect is best. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Selective Sound Sensitivity

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

Article concerning a mental illness not recognised by the DSM. No academic hits or news hits but lots of forum hits. Also no Lexis or JSTOR hits. Doesn't appear to qualify under WP:N. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:01, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DSM? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A full list of DSM diagnosis can be found here. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 14:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if there are no mentions anywhere but forums, this is pretty clear cut. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to misophonia in line with the redirect at selective sound sensitivity. Someone has hijacked a redirect that I created. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 15:58, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent sources found. Nothing found at PubMed; apparently this "syndrome" has never been published in a peer reviewed journal. The discoverer of this syndrome calls herself "Dr." Marsha Johnson but is actually an audiologist.[1] --MelanieN (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to comment on this decision. I am Dr. Marsha Johnson, audiologist, and earned the right to use the use of Dr. by obtaining an AuD (doctorate in audiology). For over 13 years I have been collecting data on this particular population, and it appears to have many names depending on which field of science you consult, i.e., auditory hyperesthethia, a form of OCD, part of the autism spectrum, possibly implication in the worlds of psychology AND neurology, as well as visual and olfactory affects. Over time, over 1300 of these individuals have assembled themselves into a Yahoo Support Group and have attracted attention of other medical professionals. I realize this is a new field in the area of medicine, not easy to define, yet it still exists and deserves recognition. The term misophonia refers to a very large population of people who dislike sound, mostly in a general sense, and is also a recent creation. There are significant differences between misophonia and the 4S condition that deserve recognition. To date, the people are scattered and official studies/clinical studies are not available, but I hope this does not mean that it can simply be deleted or considered 'non-existent'. There are now at least four separate support groups for 4S on the internet, growing rapidly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oregon7 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If your work and study of this syndrome have not been published anywhere (except webpages, self-published material, etc.), then the article constitutes "original research." Please read Wikipedia's policies about WP:Original Research and WP:Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article constitutes original research. Wikipedia does not publish original research. That is, Wikipedia does not publish material not already published by reliable sources. The only way to prove the article is not original research is to cite a reliable published source that contains the same material. No such source exists. Therefore, this article does not belong on Wikipedia. It should be removed. References to the original research should also be removed from the Wikipedia entry that user RHaworth redirected to. User: Nathan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.52.202 (talk) 19:16, 15 August 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.