Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natural breast enhancement


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Natural breast enhancement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As the article states, there is something professed here. This is fringe science along the lines of Extenze and all that, but without the coverage. FWIW, there is of course a natural breast augmentation: pregnancy. BTW, there's inherent POV in the title ("enhancement")--not everyone agrees that bigger is better. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * delete. Inherently fringe-y and completely unsupported (hah!) by any evidence. Ironholds (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete: See below. Unsourced and unsourceable OR. Pure claptrap. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 15:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as subjective and lacking corroboration. Mephistophelian  (contact)  15:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC).
 *  Deflate Delete as fringey nonsense. Prioryman (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sort of one part how-to guide and one part unsourced original essay on herbal supplements. Neither of these are acceptable under WP content guidelines. Unencyclopedic. Carrite (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Keep Yeah, there doesn't appear to be the coverage here. There are hints at some sort of article that could be made on a more general, related topic, but it's certainly not this one. Impressive improvements to the article. I would also suggest a title move to breast enhancement supplements. Silver  seren C 18:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. As is, this article is a poor starting point.  However, the topic should remain open to serious documentation.  This includes both documentation of actual biological effects (which are possible, though there's not a lot of research) and historical or cultural practices (i.e. documenting which herbs are actually being sold for this purpose, even if you believe they're worthless). Wnt (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be easier just to delete this article and recreate it from scratch at this point. Silver  seren C 02:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Major editing or starting it over from scratch is fine. Lucy346 (talk) 06:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Talking of POV in the title (as mentioned by the proposer), "Natural" is also a questionable word. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:16, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: noninvasive? (nonsurgical concepts) and a better word for enhancement? There are now at least 3 good scientific sources, and it has been restructured, since the first proposal. Lucy346 (talk) 16:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this twaddle. Guy (Help!) 17:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that IRWolfe has deleted the twaddle. The replacement article is much better - unless, of course, you are trying to sell bullshit herbal breast enhancement scams. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * keep I think the topic is notable. If not, I suggest WP:IAR, since some of the products are dangerous and it's good to have an article that highlights this. I've removed all the rubbish that was off topic or just crap and replaced it with two peer reviewed articles dedicated to the topic (i.e substantial and extensive coverage meeting WP:GNG and WP:FRINGE). I also suggest renaming the article to Breast enhancement supplements IRWolfie- (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * alternatively, Non-invasive breast enlargement. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per IRWolfie's reasoning and his improvements. I'd stick with this name, though, as it's what they call it in spam emails and in those little ads at the back of magazines . Move, with redirect, to Breast enhancement supplements, per rationales below. IRWolfie has now moved, with a redirect, to Breast enhancement supplements. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Amended 12:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a massive thing, a huge industry. I added in a bit I found about using stem cells for natural breasts enhancement.  The media does provide coverage of this, be it what works, or what doesn't.    D r e a m Focus  07:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The topic is about non-invasive breast enchancement supplements and creams. The Stem cell technique happens to sound similar, but it's a different topic. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Conditional Keep: as long as the article stays focused on supplements and creams and the like. Support renaming to Breast enhancement supplements, as the word "natural" is basically meaningless. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:29, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Conditional Keep how that the fat has been trimmed, IF it will be renamed to Breast enhancement supplements. It is a huge industry, notable in and of itself, but as others have pointed out, "natural" is misleading and is used solely as a marketing term, making it not encyclopedic in nature.  I would be against "non-invasive" as that is not specific enough and there are actually other unrelated methods of breast enhancement that are actually non-invasive, ie: pumps. and other somewhat similar methods.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 10:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've performed the move. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Wolfie's rationale, and based on improvement during AfD.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:00, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: The article was rewritten on November 2; relisting to get consensus on the new version. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep It is now a sensible article on a defined, and notable, topic. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Those alterations mitigate my concerns regarding the subjectivity of the article, yet the content nonetheless requires attention from specialists in nutrition, oncology, and pharmacology. Mephistophelian  (contact)  16:04, 3 November 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep: it now seems to be the start of a good article on a notable topic, and the renaming helps too. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Obviously, Natural breast enhancement isn't a good choice for the topic name since there's no proof of actual enhancement and "natural" seems debatable. However, "Breast enhancement supplements" brings forth only a handful of source material, none of which describe what breast enhancement supplements are. It is a better title. The topic does meet WP:GNG and the title breast enhancement supplements will help focus the article development as a good temporary fix. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep After extensive changes and a rename, this is now a reasonable starting point on having a well documented and informative article on the topic. This article is informative as a warning of the potential hazards of this class of dietary supplements, but so far being useful in that way has not been accepted on Wikipedia as a good reason to retain an article. I believe that all useful articles should be kept if there are reliable sources with correctly done inline citations. This article is notable and worthy of retention, even if being useful is not considered. --DThomsen8 (talk) 01:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename. Enhancement does seem POV but maybe that's the correct title. Otherwise sources do seem to support an article. Insomesia (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears to be well sourced, quality cites, and an improved article page. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2012 (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.