Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boehm 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 snow delete. I was the administrator who declined the blatant hoax tag, so it seems only fitting that I should now delete it. Whether a hoax or not, it can't possibly satisfy WP:GNG, as the comments below either state or imply. Bbb23 (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boehm syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No credible sources since 2005. Very likely hoax. More info at Special:PermanentLink/856475275#More eyes please. -- RexxS (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and salt. This was bad. There is only one ref here that mentions this condition. It is the "Websters" dictionary entry. NOTE that that this is not "the" Websters which is https://www.merriam-webster.com/ but rather "Webster's Online Dictionary" which a) now dead per http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org and per Philip_M._Parker#Online_dictionary, was curated by one guy. In any case, the link is actually to an archived version of the page, here. "Boehm syndrome" is listed in the "Common Expressions" section, as the third entry. It says there "references", If you click on the reference, it comes here (actually the URL there is www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/Boehm+Syndrome#Wikipedia which dies instead of directing for me at least). There are no MEDRS refs in pubmed. Shenanigans. There is nothing "borderline" here.Jytdog (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article does not meet any criteria required for keeping an article and is almost certainly a clever hoax.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:10, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cannot find information about this in medical literature, which makes this extremely unlikely to exist. Natureium (talk) 21:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the rationale I provided at WikiProject Medicine § More eyes please (permanent link), which is also linked in the nomination statement. To briefly recapitulate: This is an article about a purported medical condition for which any web search in any place consistently yields zero results when discounting for circular reporting, including the one mere mention in an information pamphlet that was published almost a decade after this article was created. Throughout the over 13 years since it was created, the article has proudly cited exactly zero sources to support it (unless you count Yahoo! Answers as one)—really, I checked all 47 revisions! Unless this ophthalmologic condition involves upper limb malformations, I anticipate the temperature to drop any moment now. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 22:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is a "Boehme syndrome" (note spelling) mentioned in "Genes in Eyecare" from the University of Waterloo, but without any helpful details. SpinningSpark 00:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I did another series of searches using that alternative spelling and they all returned fewer results, as in the ones that were non-zero began returning as zero. You probably noticed this as well. Nonetheless, thanks for your diligence, Spinningspark. I had not considered alternative spellings like that. —Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 02:05, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I also tried "Böhm" and "Bōhme" as German "ö" is often transliterated as "oe". But be warned that my security software blocked an attack from schnarchen.gw-siemerode.de which has a number of results for those terms. SpinningSpark 08:44, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I came to this article looking to improve it, but didn't find a single reliable (any) source. CV9933 (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Apparent hoax that totally fails WP:V and WP:GNG, among other guidelines. IntoThinAir (formerly Everymorning) talk 14:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow delete Complete and total fabrication. THE DIAZ ^{userpage • talk • contribs} 19:44, 26 August 2018 (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.