Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sensory Integration Dysfunction

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was to keep the article. --Canderson7 00:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Article appears to be original research. Delete unless properly cited --Rdos 06:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article has an edit history dating to 2003, it reads sensibly, maybe an issue with some reverts in the history, but otherwise I can see no problem with this that cannot be sorted out by collective agreement on the articles talk page. Alf ^melmac 11:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that they make wild claims about hypersensitivity and hyposensitivity that they cannot backup with evidences. I cannot see anywhere published research that says sensitivity differences would be related to dysfunctions in integration of sensory information. This seems to be a wild guess only. There is no DSM entry either for SID --Rdos 14:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keepThe term is well-known, nearly 80000 Google hits should be sufficient proof. Pilatus 13:12, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think Google is much of an indication, especially since the individual words are quite commmon. A search on sensory+integration+dysfunction on PublMed gives 4 hits and none of them give evidences for the theory presented in the article.--Rdos 14:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was searching for the phrase, i.e. "sensory integration dysfunction". Even if it isn't in the DSM and not backed up by science it's at least a popular phrase that is much being thrown around. sensory+integration+autism gave 24 PubMed hits. Besides, for pseudoscience PubMed isn't the best source. Pilatus 14:30, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it is pseudoscience, according to original research policy it should be deleted or at least the article should describe it as such. Another problem is the links, that goes to a company selling treatments for autism. Advertising isn't allowed on WP either --Rdos 16:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not up to us to condemn the research as bogus, what matters is that it is popular bogus. Our job is not to judge but to report what the arguments on both sides are and who supports the theory and who doesn't. The linkspam must go, of course. Pilatus 18:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP same person pushing the BS Neanderthal theory here that is original research. Pushing some kind of agenda - please stop! This is backed by many, many, many professionals and should never have been listed. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:58, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ryan, if this article should be retained, so should the The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum. Both theories are equally popular in the autistic community, has the same backing up on PublMed (almost none) and has similar hits on Google --Rdos 18:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned in the Neanderthal VfD this theory has been in many medical journals, while your "theory" has not. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:01, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You'd better present it here as well then. AFAIK, what you presented was evidence that the treatment that predated the theory of SID is well established. You certainly have not shown that SID itself has any meaningful backing in the literature. --Rdos 19:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're arguing that treatment predated the syndrome? What utter rubbish. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 19:13, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not the syndrome, the formulation of a theory of the syndrome (SID) --Rdos 19:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No reason to delete with worth-while article. --2mcm^Gespräch 21:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. Doesn't actually say what the alleged condition is. Mentions what "sensory" means (several times). but never specifies what this neological, sorry, neurological, disorder, manifests as, apart from a sudden leap to autism. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:47, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Can't vouch for the content but apparently is a well-known term. See, New York Times, "Not All Swings Are Created Equal," Sept. 4, 2005. pg. 14.6 (story about a child with "Sensory Integration Disorder"); "Psychotherapy of a Dissociative 8-Year-Old Boy Burned at Age 3," Bradley C Stolbach. Psychiatric Annals. Thorofare: Aug 2005.Vol.35, Iss. 8; pg. 685 (child had been receiving treatment for, among other things, "sensory integration dysfunction."). Crypticfirefly 05:07, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with {{not verified}} tag (my edit) as a request for further sourcing and verification. This looks like reasonable biomedical science (to my layman's eye), but if relatively newly identified and accepted in the scientific community, there will be acceptable references, although they might take a while to percolate from the world of journals to the publicly-accessible Web. MCB 07:15, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are several pubmed hits for "Sensory integration dysfunction" (see, e.g., PMID 14730839 and PMID 2468631) and many more for sensory integration therapy, which I agree seems to be a separate thing. Rdos, please read the no original research policy more carefully, as I am not sure that you understand it yet. If you need help understanding it and have questions, please feel free to drop by my talk page and ask me; I'll be glad to help. Regards, Nandesuka 22:06, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Much of the information in this Sensory Integration Dysfunction article can be confirmed in a book called "The Out-of-Sync Child Recognizing and Coping with Sensory Integration Dysfunction" by Carol Stock Kranowitz, M.A. Rdos, I am aware that not all people who have autism have Sensory Integration Dysfunction as a co-morbid condition and this article does not imply they do. However many do, including several members of my family as well as myself. It is a good thing to have a thumbnail article about Sensory Integration Dysfunction like this for laymen. Regards, Aspens (newly registered user) 18:50, 14 September 2005
  • The point is not whether your family have the symptoms of SID. The point is that it has not been verified that these symptoms are caused by integration issues in the brain. --Rdos 09:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have SID, so this article's quite important to me. In regards to copyright or advertising, we can clean it up. Sean (talk || edits) 11:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I also have SID. I refer people to this page because it the only convenient summary of SID on the internet. In regards to Tonywalton's comment, this article says exact what it is.
• Keep. Reservations about the validity of SID can be discussed on the talk page or in an added section in the article, but this is a legitimate topic worthy of an article. There should also be an article about sensory diets, a popular trend in treating Pervasive developmental disorders, and these articles should link to each other. --Woggly 06:56, 21 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.