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 -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lipid hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Term only used by opponents of the well-accepted medical concept that cholesterol plays an important role in the development of atherosclerosis. Should not have its own page. If suitable for merge at all, we could try The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, which represents these "critics". JFW | T@lk 18:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as POV fork - presents the dominant, widely accepted scientific model as an unproven conjecture. Alternately, delete and redirect to cholesterol. Criticism or alternative hypotheses of cardiovascular disease should be handled at cholesterol, coronary artery disease, etc. MastCell 19:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• neutral There is a fair amount of discussion, and reputable minority opinion can be found. This article doesn't add much , though, and a proper one can be re-created. DGG 03:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This debate should be mentioned as part of the general discussion of the role of cholesterol in disease. To use the terminology of the opposition as a starting point one ends up with a piece of POV from beginning to end. JFW | T@lk 19:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a quick search for "lipid hypothesis" on PubMed brings up 70+ scientific publications and reviews, including a mention that the lipid hypothesis was proposed over 100 years ago, so surely there's some content that could be contributed here, both from a historical standpoint as well as scientific discussion. - tameeria 05:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except it has practically ceased being a hypothesis. The average cardiovascular paper treats it as established fact. Only the opponents still refer to it as a theory (compare "theory of evolution", which is really only called a "theory" by its opponents). The average animal study uses ApoE knockout mice, giving them very high cholesterol levels and accelerated atherosclerosis. The premise that underlies this is not questioned anymore. JFW | T@lk 19:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because it has ceased being a hypothesis doesn't mean though that it never existed. A search on "lipid hypothesis" brings up 16,000 Google hits with the thincs page being the top hit. A couple of the pages I've clicked through are full of factual errors and misinformation. I think having a page explaining the "lipid hypothesis" and the surrounding controversy in a NPOV manner would be beneficial for those seeking unbiased information on the topic. It certainly has some interest in a historical sense and as a case study of testing a scientific hypothesis and the type of criticism medical research might have to overcome even in the modern world. - tameeria 21:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my example. Those who still call it a "hypothesis" are the dissenters. Their viewpoints should be examined in the larger context of how and why cholesterol might cause disease. A dedicated article is not indicated. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as I've rewritten it to be about the term in neutral fashion. I agree with MastCell that we shouldn't present the dominant scientific view as an unproven conjecture. We can, however, report facts about opinions, including the fact that the dominant view is considered by some to be an unproven conjecture. This term has enough currency that some people might encounter it and want to know what it means. As with other such nonneutral terms, however (see Chickenhawk (politics) for an example), our article needs to characterize the term as stemming from a particular POV. We should not implicitly accept that POV, as the previous version did. JamesMLane t c 11:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dissenters need to be mentioned as part of a bigger picture, in the context of the cholesterol or hypercholesterolaemia articles. The expansion you made simply emphasises the point as made by the opponents, and actually just proves my point (that the three premises attacked by THINCS and their friends need to be examined together with the enormous mounds of evidence in favour of the "hypothesis"). JFW | T@lk 19:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An article about one aspect of one viewpoint will, to some extent, emphasize that viewpoint. For example, we have a separate article on Young Earth creationism. It states that mainstream science rejects creationism but doesn't go into detail about the evidence favoring evolution. Noting the rejection by mainstream science conforms to the policy of WP:NPOV that we state facts about opinions. In my rewrite of Lipid hypothesis, I stated that the opinion underlying the use of the phrase is not the generally accepted one. Perhaps that point should be amplified? I don't think this article is the best place to put the whole discussion of the enormous mounds of evidence, but the article might be augmented by a citation to a source saying what you say (and what I believe to be true), namely that this phrase is the terminology of the opposition and that the scientific consensus is to the contrary. JamesMLane t c 20:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So call it "criticism of the lipid hypothesis". That actually covers the content. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: Now I'm confused about your position. If it became an article on "Criticism of the lipid hypothesis", then it would logically have to expand on the criticism, present the evidence cited by the skeptics, etc. Going that route would mean that it would indeed turn into a POV fork. It would become the THINCS version of the cholesterol article. I think it's better to keep the article but limit it to being about the term, not the concept. I included the quotation to illustrate the POV of those who use the term, not to start a full-blown discussion of the pros and cons. The latest rewrite by tameeria has a lot of useful information about the pros and cons, but I don't think this article is the right place for that. It's better for this article to stick to the two main points about the term "lipid hypothesis": which hypothesis is meant, and the use of the term by THINCS et al. to convey a POV. Most of the rewritten version should be moved somewhere else, possibly Hypercholesterolemia. Exception: This citation added by tameeria is a good one to fill the gap I mentioned above, namely a confirmation of what the current scientific consensus is. JamesMLane t c 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I agree with most of your points, just think that the above could be more fruitfully realized by redirecting to cholesterol or atherosclerosis, and briefly handling significant minority positions there (per WP:Content forking) MastCell 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not against handling the minority position in one or both of those articles. Many readers, though, will already be familiar with the general subject matter; all they need to know is what hypothesis about lipids is being referred to with this specific phrase. An article that simply tells them that, with wikilinks to the other articles you mention, is more useful than a redirect. The previous version was something of a POV fork, but I believe the rewrite is NPOV. It doesn't address the same subject from a different viewpoint, but instead neutrally addresses one narrow aspect of the whole subject, namely this particular phrase. JamesMLane t c 18:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Request: As with this AfD, if the article is kept, could I ask some of the editors here to watchlist it, in case it shows signs of again becoming a vehicle for minority POV? I do think JamesMLane's rewrite is a big improvement. MastCell 21:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is kept and does not grow at all it would be a prime candidate for a merge/redirect. JFW | T@lk 21:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have expanded the article, based largely on references found via PubMed. - tameeria 06:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Tameeria's expanded version looks good. Spacepotato 23:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete or merge This is not worthy as a unique entry. Small bits of it would be more approriate spread among entries on CAD, PVD, & Cholesterol kept in the context that it is NOT the widely held view re. atherosclertic pathogenesis.Droliver 02:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article is a brief summary, as now written, of the historical development of the understanding of the role of cholesterol in CAD. Kd4ttc 22:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I remember reading about this stuff in the course of my research on cardiovascular disease. I think it is interesting in a historical context-- the fact that it goes back to Rudolf Virchow. That stated, I understand that the article was written to push a POV-- where the emphasis is on the word hypothesis, much like the nut-jobs that put the emphasis on theory in the context of the theory of evolution and think that screaming theory loudly actually discredits it. Nephron  T|C 19:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I think that the rewrite by Tameeria (talk · contribs) looks excellent. However, I agree with Nephron (talk · contribs) that the information might be better merged into articles on cholesterol, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidemia, etc per WP:POVFORK. MastCell 20:42, 3 March 2007 (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.