Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treatments for chronic headaches

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 keep. No consensus to delete here; merge/redirect discussion can continue at the article talkpage. Skomorokh 23:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treatments for chronic headaches

Almost entirely lifted from a non-reliable source, redundant with headache and its subarticles. I see no merge potential here. JFW | T@lk 23:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since there seem to be 73 citations to nine sources, my only concern is identifying which of those nine is the non-reliable source referred to above. The other eight would probably suffice. Mandsford (talk) 03:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I'd, too, like to know which source the nom. considers nonreliable. If the nonreliability of a major source is proven, I probably will change my opinion to delete. Currently, I think that the article fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Wikipedia is not a complete exposition of all possible details, or a medical manual. If we have this, then we'd have to permit a "treatment" article for about every somewhat widespread chronic disease with all the glorious details this one has. Consider this:

In testing, gabapentin was found to reduce the number of headache days a month by 9.1%.[14] Tizanidine was found to decrease the average frequency of headaches per week, the headache intensity, and the mean headache duration. [16] Through studies, Fluoxetine resulted in better mood ratings and “significant increases in headache-free days.”[17]

Do we really need to know, in one article, all the pharmacological intricacies? Isn't that what the links to other articles are for? We need cover only the essential information here, and I have little problem concluding that, stripped down to the essential details, we don't have enough content to justify a standalone article. Any useful and non-redundant material can be merged into headache, and this page made into a redirect. Tim Song (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - there is useful information in there, but Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Bearian (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This exceedingly well-referenced and highly encyclopedic article handily meets WP:GNG. "pharmacological intricacies" are of great value to medical professionals and other readers with sufficient interest the subject matter; I have little patience for editors who seek to "dumb down" our science coverage through the exclusion of technical detail. The description of therapeutic methods in a neutral tone does not constitute instruction in violation of WP:NOTHOWTO: only when an article abandons neutrality, and offers specific advice and suggestions does it run afoul of the policy. For instance, Treatments_for_chronic_headaches#Analgesic_and_abortive_medications is written in an acceptable tone, but the following rephrasing would be inconsistent with WP:NOTHOWTO (and would likely be construed as "medical advice" contrary to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer):
While you may be tempted to seek pain relief from analgesic medicines such as aspirin, acetaminophen, aspirin compounds, ibuprofen, and narcotics, and abortive medications such as ergotamine (Cafergot), triptans (Imitrex), and prednisone (Deltasone), abuse of analgesics and abortive medications can actually lead to an increase in your headaches. Instead, you should limit your use of analgesic and abortive medications to headaches that are not chronic in nature.
Erik9 (talk) 18:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on sources I assume that the disputed source is "Duckro, Paul N., Taking Control of Your Headaches: How to Get the Treatment You Need. ISBN 9781572304710". Three-quarters of the article is cited to this book, the most recent version of which is now a decade out of date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If this particular source is questionable (though most of the sources listed in Treatments_for_chronic_headaches#Sources appear to be of excellent quality), then citations to it should be replaced with better sources. As this subject matter is covered extensively in peer-reviewed medical journals, medical textbooks, etc, there's no question that hundreds of additional high-quality references can be found. We don't delete/merge/redirect articles on obviously notable subjects because of easily correctable editorial deficiencies. Erik9 (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is almost all tertiary sources from a single viewpoint. Secondary sources are barely cited at all and the article cannot stand on them. A few sections may have some salvage value, but this is a badly weighted how-to guide. Novangelis (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that, per Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License, if we delete the article, thereby destroying the author information contained in the page history, we cannot use the text anywhere else in Wikipedia, since the "Attribution" clause of the license will not be satisfied. Of course, mere reassertion that the article is a "how-to guide", without responding to my argument above as to why it isn't, is not convincing. Erik9 (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it might be better to close this AFD as "no consensus" now than to permit it to drag on for weeks, thereby becoming a chronic headache... Erik9 (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This topic is too rich in potential for deletion, there being thousands of sources specifically discussing treatments for this common ailment. If the current version is unsatisfactory then it is our editing policy to improve it, not delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:04, 14 August 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.