Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empty nose syndrome (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 03:27, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Empty nose syndrome
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I would like to delete this article on the grounds of the subject itself (ENS) being too poorly explained, defined and researched in the medical literature. It's also a highly controversial topic.

I am the original author of this article. I used the name than "Allon A", but soon after changed it to "Rock2000". Under the latter name I am the main and almost sole contributor to this article. I have been trying for years now to define it properly. But after much discussion with ENT specialists and after scanning the medical literature on the nose - I have understood that it is a highly controversial, misunderstood, non-researched and undefined topic.

I am a post radical turbinectomy sufferer myself, so being able to define a proper universal syndrome which represents my symptoms and others has been very important for me and this is why I began this article. But after 2 and a half years and much effort to investigate this problem - I have reached the conclusion that aside from chronic "nasal dryness" which appears in Wikipedia in other articles (like "atrophic rhinitis") there doesn't seem to be a way to trully distinguish and define this post-surgical complication. The symptoms are terribly variable and hardly repeat themselves among sufferers, and it is not clear what triggers what.

I have to recognize that currently it is not defined and agreed upon sufficiently in the medical literature in such a way which deserves an article article in Wikipedia.

There is currently only one doctor (Steven Houser) that believes that it is defineable and engages in some sort of research to try and define it. I have been in direct contact with him and he too admits that up to now he is not sure if it can be defined as a seperate entity.

Please endorse my request to delete this article. (I know that the citations I listed are impressive, yet most of them warn against extensive turbinectomies. Those authors who attempt to define ENS do so out of their private opinion which is based on their impression as clinicians but not on properly controlled and validated scientific research.)

Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock2000 (talk • contribs) 2008-12-28 11:52:13
 * Note from what I have read of the article and of "related articles" --- this one does seem to be valuable and valid for entry from both a logical and (At minimal) a well founded exploratory basis. While perhaps addition of an entry at the top which gives a typical "disclaimer" could be seen as needed to invoke usual cautionaries in use of information in stating that this is written from personal experience and perspective; this, as written and open to further edit, looks to be well done even as a personalized entry as the originating author states (below).  Again, perhaps a disclaimer within the section of "external links" could be of "good and fair" service. On my personal experiences, we can too quickly and too often disregard good logic of that which happens to be based partly in personal experience.  Not to compare, but a large part of what is sometimes missing in medical review is some humble humility and arriving at applicable medical logic for both discovery and potential for solutions and good treatment through our "personal experiences" being approached with furthered scientific endeavor to arrive at good and solid evidence to be applied to complex systems such as evidenced in anatomy and illness interactions.  While, I have not read all articles cited and have not been formally trained in fields of medical science... this looks to be well deserving of further or continued publication.  Terminology such as "mean onset" shows referenced studies give potential evidence of this article being within "normal" bounds of credible research that can likely stand well to add qualitatively to the "human experience" of our sharing commonalities even through citations on our  unique human chemistries and experiences. Note, my personal interest is within a potentially related experience with years of conditions caused not by potential resulting from turbinectomies or conchotomies - yet, with an internal and systemic exposure to poison ivy.  Briefly, a relatively substantial amount of poison ivy (rhus tox) oil was taken into blood stream through (many) fresh open skin wounds.  For years, the ivy oil caused conditions and damage to internal tissues such as (yet not limited to) muscle/bone joints and mucus membranes.  The referenced material in this article could guide thru a potential furthered healing through potential in its explaining some interactions of the body's health-maintaining structures, mechanisms and interactions.  This may help my personal experience in that chronic symptoms seen in the throat, sinus & mucus regulation (etc.) could benefit from what is written here in the ENS article.  While I found this ENS article thru a seemingly unrelated link; and, while the name ENS seems maybe too simplified, this article may fit well if for no other purpose for branching into the related more "accepted" fields.  Knowledge and thoughtful consideration for use of knowledge as seen here is power that should apply well to the health of "the human experience."  Hope expression in applying for deletion will be reconsidered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.182.71.102 (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep This is a ridiculous request. Even I questioned its notability long ago, but it is a verified medical syndrome.  The article is a POS mess, needs lots of work, and is essentially useless, but it is a real syndrome.  Can someone just speedy keep this thing, and we can move on?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if this is discredited is pseudoscience or quackery it is still notable. Should we delete Phrenology too?--Ted-m (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * so are you two happy with it then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock2000 (talk • contribs) 13:58, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is definitely not pseudoscience or quackery. It's a very real but complicated issue which is acknowledged by the rhinological community as an iatrogenic problem. But it is very difficult to define, so after many attempts I guess I just gave up. Perhaps I am wrong to give up, so I guess I'm really seeking your opinion for confidence of whether to prsue with this or not... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock2000 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It needs work, for sure, but it's notable and important enough that deleting the article would be a disservice to Wikipedia readers. My advice is that if it's something controversial, why not get conflicting opinions equally represented on the article? --coldacid (talk|contrib) 18:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I still think that it needs to be deleted. I am the one who began this article and built it up over the years. At the time it seemed like the understanding of this iatrogenic problem will grow as more research will be published. However, as this is a iatrogenic problem - doctors seem more interested in simply preventing it than explaining it. You can't open an article in Wikipedia for every problem that occurs from a bodily accident or from medical mal practice of over resection of some part of the body. Under the same token would you justify an article called "Empty Mouth Syndrome" - to depict a mouth that had it's teeth knocked out by mistake?... There was one article in 2001 that claimed that over resetion of the turbinates causes a disease known as "atrophic rhinitis" but this disease has already an article in Wikipedia and in any case it was found to be wrong as it does not cause atrophic rhinitis. Therefore, with all the regret I have over all the time I invested in building up this article, I have to be honest enough to myself and to Wikipedia readers and ask that it will be deleted. Perhaps in the future, if more research will be published that verifies it as an independent syndrome/disease which is not only iatrogenic and has a clear diagnosis I will, or others, write up a better, more accurate and improved article. For now I believe it is a misservice to keep it presented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rock2000 (talk • contribs) 15:31, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Although you seem to feel some regret over having started this article, this can be the same vehicle for alerting people to what you've just stated -- that other studies suggest that there is no basis to this so-called "syndrome".  Whether this is deleted or not, people will still be hearing about "empty nose syndrome" and will still be entering it as a search term, and finding hundreds of sites.  One reason that people come to Wikipedia is in the hope of finding the most up to date information in the quickest way, and to at least have an idea about what other links they should be looking at.  Mandsford (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to bring up a concern that DGG brought up in the last AfD - I think it's still relevant here. Is the term "empty nose syndrome" in wide use in the medical community or is it a neologism? Has the medical community accepted its classification as a "syndrome" or is it a loose collection of symptoms that one or two researchers decided to name?  Graymornings (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a cross between OR and promotion. "There is very little research published about this syndrome," to quote from the article, is the sort of phrase that is a giveaway.  What we should at least have done after the first AfD is edited it very drastically--but the recent month has seen a major expansion of the inappropriately detailed and over-emphasized content. An indication of the true promotional nature of the article can best be seen from the external links.  DGG (talk) 01:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable and verifiable syndrome as evidenced by a Google Scholar search. AfD is not the appropriate venue for cleaning up an article. -Atmoz (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.