Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oshtoran syndrome

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oshtoran syndrome

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

Not seeing enough evidence of its existence. There are two journal article looking papers. They are not pubmed indexed. One is mostly blurred out https://issuu.com/oshtoran.syndrome/docs/oshtoran Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references to it are self references of dubious nature. Compare the link Doc James posted to this abstract. The link he posted took the article, blurred out some parts, and replaced the "conclusion" section with something about Oshtoran. This reference has a clear header, but then is just lorem ipsum after that. only (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Graham Beards (talk) 20:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. There's also concern at WP:Med that this article may be a hoax. The editor Only brought it to our attention. Whatever the case, the article is likely being used to promote this topic, which is not supported by the sources it needs. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, clearly not notable, and likely either a hoax or a "condition" not widely accepted at all in the medical community outside of one group of scientists. No academic sources I could find on Google Scholar (just patents). Everymorning (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking reliable supportive evidence. — soupvector (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research, which we do not publish, despite all the urban legends. Bearian (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2017 (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.