It's still a copyvio since you've just changed a few words. It will need a complete re-write to be otherwise, and the subject is probably covered in
Asthma. If it isn't, you could add the information there - but not please an unreffed copy / paste job. Cheers,
Baffle gab1978 (
talk)
00:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Is seen as a distinct group (phenotype) of asthma and I've added refs to this effect (also refs of their being 2 types of brittle asthma). So I think notability is established. That accepted, whether still best in its own article or merged into main
asthma I remain open minded - but certainly current
asthma article seems to make no mention of 'brittle asthma' at all. I think crux is that even with high dose inhalled steroids supposedly to address inflammation, brittle asthma remains an active process with symptoms and exacerbations.
David RubenTalk02:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't really have a strong opinion on whether it should be merged, but the
Asthma article seems quite large enough without it. If not merged, probably some mention should be made of it at that article. I don't work much in this area, though. I came because of the copyright concerns. :) (It was listed automatically at
WP:SCV). In rewriting, I've added a bit more sourced text. Would have liked to have drawn more from a more recent source, but the 1999 book was the most thorough and accessible I could find. --
Moonriddengirl(talk)20:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)reply