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. MBisanz ^talk 13:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empty nose syndrome

[edit]

There is very little medical literature that uses the term "Empty nose syndrome" and at this point in time it is quite hard to define as a separate entity with clear symptoms. It relates to a nose crippled by over resection of the nasal turbinates, but the symptoms are so variable and changing from one person to another that it is impossible to really define. It's a bit like putting all the causes of nasal obstruction under one term and calling it - "Blocked nose syndrome". Not very scientific... So - I would like this article to be deleted. I am the original author of this article. My old registration name which I used back then was "Allon a". Many thanks. Rock2000 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The amount of references and discussion in journals means this meets WP:GNG. However, the article does contain a certain amount of synthesis which could, and should, be trimmed. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a strange nomination. Per the article, the term was coined by Doctors Kern (of the Mayo Clinic) and Stenquist, and has figured in the title of several journal articles, so calling it "not very scientific" seems doubtful. It is well written and well referenced. The extended section of quotes should be reduced, the forum link removed, and any apparent OR removed, but otherwise it seems like a fine article. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are enough references here to document notability, as Stifle notes. Even if medical literature is limited on the subject, having some reliable medical literature reference it is sufficient, I think, to warrant keeping the article. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 16:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Somewhat referenced, well written and notability asserted, meets Wikipedia guidelines. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 17:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Well written, references, in journals, etc. Meets notability guidelines. 'Nuff said. _David ^WS _(contribs) 21:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - multiple high quality sources already cited, easily establish notability by the usual criterion. Wily D 23:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject may just possibly be notable, but there is no real indication that nobody except one particular researcher, Houser, uses the term. Are there any references usingthat as the main term for this not from him or his group? If not, is a neologism that didn't catch on. The article is furthermore written as a polemic, and in a style inappropriate and out of place in a general encyclopedia. We should cover science and medicine fully, but this is not reasonable. I am glad the author thought better of it. if kept, which i dont think it should be, it of course can be cut down to size very readily. DGG (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep — this is obviously referenced and verifiable. ~~The reason to delete seems to be based on WP:IDONTKNOWIT and possibly an attempt at disruption, as the user has had a long track record of voting the opposite in so many AFDs.~~ MuZemike (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2008 (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.