Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperia (epilepsy)

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. J04n(talk page) 18:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperia (epilepsy)[edit]

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

This article is original research and synthesis. The userpage of Japal1950 (talk · contribs) provides his credentials; the identity given matches that of the author of the [only] three results on Google Scholar for the search 'hyperia epilepsy'. Of the 27 citations, 10 are to his own work, and the rest are pure synthesis. In the lead we have the large red flag "The term hyperia is a neologism proposed to name this newly differentiated cerebral activity". I thought that perhaps some of the content could be incorporated into creativity and mental illness, but after more careful reading I don't see anything that's worth moving. Really wondering how this made it through WP:AFC. Maralia (talk) 15:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neologism and OR. Nominator's reasoning is persuasive. --MelanieN (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article contains some interesting information, but given that the term is a neologism (which I have verified), we really can't have an article with this title. Looie496 (talk) 17:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's author posted the following note on my talk page; I am pasting it here for reference. --MelanieN (talk) 18:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons because I think it is necessary to maintain the neologism ´hyperia':
I fundamented the decision to crate a neologism on two reasons: firstly, the fact that this innovative hypothesis entails great consequences which will constitute important changes in different neurosciences: neurology, psychiatry, neurophysiology, etc. Basically and summarizing, it is necessary to differentiate clearly and distinctly hiperic activity from epileptic activity, since the first one is physiological and the second one is pathological. So, hyperia and epilepsy are two concepts necessarily different.
Secondly, there are many different denominations to allude to psychic automatisms that are the subject of our investigation: aura, partial seizures with quantitative consciousness preserved SPSs), non-convulsive seizures (Hirsch & Jirsch 2007), non-convulsive behavioral seizures (Pontius & Wieser 2004), etc. Some of these terms induce to confusion (v. g. aura) and other ones are not exactly synonymous. So, the most quick and practice solution to finish with this confusion is terming these automatisms with substantive hyperia or adjective hiperic, in such way that when we say or read hiperic manifestations immediately we know to what kind of manifestations are we referring to: unexpected depersonalization without apparent reason, or a sudden déjà vu, or a devastating panic attack, or incomprehensible alternations of manic-depressive phases, or sudden hallucinations and delusions accompanied of brilliant clairvoyance, etc. --Japal1950 (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Delete is OR + Neologism + COI. This research is interesting but WP is not the place to publish it. Doc Elisa ^✉ 19:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an interesting conception, and I hope that Japal1950 will stick with us, because our psychiatry articles are often missing very basic information or stuffed with some real nonsense. But I don't think that it's desirable for this idea to be present until some independent sources have published good descriptions of this specific idea. It needs more time and attention in the real world before it appears here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there are no secondary sources. Delete per non notable.--Garrondo (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article looks like it is associating epilepsy with spiritual or religious matters. While this is creative, I don't know where it is heading, and that worries me. My understanding is that this article could be about drug use or unseen mental trauma causing epilepsy. Original research belongs in Wikiversity, but if there is a questionable motive or if this is not scientific, it doesn't belong there either. - Sidelight 12 ^Talk 06:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons of Japal1950 to think that Hyperia must be not deleted: 1.Hyperia fulfils the conditions required by Wikipedia about "original research", since it uses reliable sources. Indeed, it is an investigation theorizing a new cerebral function based on: a. Eight articles of the author published in Scientific Journals of impact, belonging to different independent international Editorials, in which the author explains the scientific investigations that lead him to elaborate this hypothesis. These articles have deserved more than forty citations by part of other authors. b. Two monographic books about this matter published by Editorial Trotta, a Spanish independent editorial. c. Many bibliographic references from authors who write about the same matter, on which the hyperia’s author bases his hypothesis. 2.Being hyperia a new cerebral function proposed y the author it is logical to propose also a neologism to term this activity delimited just now. Furthermore, we think is useful a new term to denominate this hypersincronic activicty because: a.Firstly, the fact that this innovative hypothesis entails great consequences which will constitute important changes in different neurosciences: neurology, psychiatry, neurophysiology, etc. Basically and summarizing, it is necessary to differentiate clearly and distinctly hiperic activity from epileptic activity, since the first one is physiological and the second one is pathological. So, hyperia and epilepsy are two concepts necessarily different. b.Secondly, there are many different denominations to allude to psychic automatisms that are the subject of our investigation: aura, simple partial seizures with psychic contents, non-convulsive seizures (Hirsch & Jirsch 2007), non-convulsive behavioral seizures (Pontius & Wieser 2004), etc. Some of these terms induce to confusion (v. g. aura) and other ones are not exactly synonymous. So, the most quick and practice solution to finish with this confusion is terming these automatisms with substantive hyperia or adjective hiperic, in such way that when we say or read hiperic manifestations immediately we know to what kind of manifestations are we referring to: unexpected depersonalization without apparent reason, or a sudden déjà vu, or a devastating panic attack, or incomprehensible alternations of manic-depressive phases, or sudden hallucinations and delusions accompanied of brilliant clairvoyance, etc. References: Jirsch, J & Hirsch, L.J. (2007) Nonconvulsive seizures: Deceloping rational approach to the diagnosis and management in the critically ill population. Clinical Neurophysiology 118: 1660-1670. Pontius, A.A. & Wieser, H.G. (2004) Can memories kindle nonconvulsive behavioral seizures in humans? Case report exemplifying the “limbic psychotic trigger reaction”. Epilepsy& Behavior 5: 775-83. --Japal1950 (talk) 11:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This may or may not be a useful neologism to introduce, but Wikipedia is not the place to do it. Wikipedia:No original research includes:

"If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery."

JohnCD (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JohnCD. I call close per WP:SNOW. --B2C 19:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Japal1950. I agree with the remaining comments: Wikipedia is not the place to house hypothesis of hyperia. The readers interested in know about hypothesis of hyperia can visit http://www.newpsychiatry.com/ Japal1950 (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2013 (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.