Deletion of List of diseases and conditions with unusual features

Comment: per blatant POV and OR.  (Older arguments to use outdated books to justify current information should be ignored or discounted.)  As an example, Tourette syndrome is included on the list because it used to be considered rare or bizarre, and current research shows it to be a common condition.  This article is an OR magnet, and does not rely on sources that meet ; it is inherently OR and POV
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS)

Comment: We've given this article several months to come up with some non--violating criteria for inclusion, and it hasn't happened.  IMO, it hasn't happened because it can't happen:  despite assertions that we'll just follow the reliable sources, high-quality |medicine-related reliable sources simply don't provide a basis for inclusion.  Reliable sources frequently describe diseases as "rare" (which has several legal and technical definitions, depending on purpose and jurisdiction), but the meaning of "unusual" in the medical literature is decidedly different from what this sensationalistic article wants.  For example, leukemia normally presents with high white blood cell counts, but some less-common forms, and some less-common states, present with low white blood cell counts (called aleukemia).  Low WBC counts is an "unusual feature" of leukemia.  But the editors don't want leukemia in this article, because it's not a gruesome, grotesque, or sensational disease.  The bottom line is ''every single disease has unusual features'', from "the common cold can cause a fever, but it doesn't ''usually'' do so," on down the list.  This article wants to be Ripley's Believe It or Not, which I don't accept as a |proper reliable source for this purpose.  This article could maybe be transwikied to Wikibooks, but it ''cannot'' meet Wikipedia's basic  and  policies
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR||WP:MEDRS||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NOR)

Comment: The sources used do not meet Wikipedia |guidelines re reliable sources, nor is the list encylopedic.  In the previous AFD, several recommendations were given to make this page into a list suitable for Wikipedia, nonetheless it remains unsuitable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: There is absolutely no way this isn't a |original research list unless some actual, reliable, scientific study from whatever organization handles odd and rare diseases (excuse my ignorance in this topic) is released. Also, per Sandy's comment about Tourette syndrome
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: Subjective title/topic inhibits NPOV since one source could call a disease "unusual" while another could place it within a larger topic. Reliable sources don't cut it when the topic is subjective like this and a leap to |original research is necessary to create the article, which is against our policy. A rename can't work as long as the topic is subjective and judgemental
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: I ''really'' like this list in spite of its problems. Since that's not a proper reason, I am not !voting, but if I think about it for a while perhaps I will find a pretext to !vote keep. This AfD reminds me of List of common misconceptions, which also once survived an AfD with no consensus. There are some superficial similarities, but this list is much more focused and attracts much less nonsense. Basically the question is whether a specific article is sufficiently interesting to include it here. I would have thought that we can deal with this, and I think it's a bit of a stretch to describe this as a POV issue. Perhaps this list can be moved into portal space, and perhaps we need ikiProject Edutainment to take care of such lists. I would see it as a service to those of our readers who like to learn the general basic facts of nature by reading about the most unusual and exciting special cases. Actually, outside my main areas of interest I am one of them. This kind of list doesn't need to be as carefully done as other, more serious ones. Nobody will be seriously misled by an erroneous decision about the conclusion or otherwise of an article
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Help:Watchlist (WP:W)