Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fissure of the nipple

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The result was withdrawn by nominator. No one supports deletion; merging or renaming doesn't require an Afd. (non-admin closure) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fissure of the nipple[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no reliable and acceptable medical reference that I can find to support the content of the article. Fissure of the nipple is a medical condition and by consensus in Project Medicine, all sources for the article are supposed to be from medical textbooks, systematic reviews and meta-analysis from the past five years, official medical organizations, professional medical organizations, and governmental health websites. I looked and couldn't find any reference to this condition in the references I looked at. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 10:12, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like an aggressive interpretation of WP:MEDRS, which applies to "content" instead of "articles", does not ban all other kinds of sources, and also does not belong to WikiProject Medicine. MEDRS belongs to the whole community, just like plain old WP:RS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true, and MEDRS applied to the content of this article is aggressive, then I don't understand the purpose of the MEDRS guidelines or the nomination process. I'm not proposing that the whole article must meet medrs guidelines because I realize that non-medrs sources are not banned - I've created search templates for the purpose of finding sources. Medical and health related articles contain content on history and culture-a good thing. I'm sorta confused about your comment. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename This article should be renamed to Jogger's nipple. I believe that someone probably thought that Fissure of the nipple was more officially medical sounding. While there may not be any medical articles on fissure of the nipple, a Google Scholar search under jogger's nipple or jogger's nipples retrieves a bunch from medical journals.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22jogger%27s+nipple%22+OR+%22jogger%27s+nipples%22&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=1%2C44

I have seen no coverage of jogger's nipple in Cracked nipple. I have first-hand experience with the condition, unfortunately. There are products sold in running stores to try & shield against it, such as Body Glide.

Peaceray (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nominators rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ozzie10aaaa: Do you oppose renaming to Jogger's nipple solely on the the nominator's rational was that she could not find sources for Fissure of the nipple? Have you checked out what's available for Jogger's nipple? There appears to be a number of articles in medical journals about Jogger's nipple that seem to meet some WP:MEDRS criteria, including articles in JAMA & the New England Journal of Medicine. Peaceray (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Ozzie, I think you should explain why you believe that something can both be in the ICD-10 and not be verifiable. IMO if we haven't found sources, yet, it's just because we haven't looked in the right places. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

in that case, rename, thus keep(ive struck my prior comment)thank you....(BTW this [1]ICD isn't from who.int)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep and perhaps consider a merge to Cracked nipple. This is a category of problems in the ICD-10. The current situation seems to be separating irritant dermatitis of the nipple caused by breastfeeding from irritant dermatitis of the nipple caused by anything else. There is absolutely no chance that we can't find sources to support it. However, we're probably more likely to find sources among books instead of recent research papers. A dermatology textbook might be a good starting point for the non-breastfeeding causes (e.g., ISBN 9781416052210 at page 281–282). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has an ICD9 code[2] and the code is for this name. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That code only applies to the postpartum source of a fissure, or cracked nipples. No mention of jogging is contained in the code. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If appropriate references have been found they probably should be inserted into the article. At this time the article has no refs. If it gets merged all its content has the potential of being deleted because it is unsourced. No ref that I found states that a fissure of the nipple is the same as jogger's nipple.

If editors have found content and refs to use, then at this point in time, that content and references can be put into the article. Create joggers nipple and use sources that use that term. It is a synth to say that fissure of the nipple = jogger's nipple. Jogger's nipple (if I understand it correctly) doesn't necessarily involve a fissure. I've not looked for refs for joggers nipple but I imagine that simple friction can cause irritation and not necessarily a fissure. Common sense = joggers nipple is an uncomfortable result of friction.

I've been tidying up many proj med articles and deleting unsourced, poorly sourced content and content that doesn't meet MEDRS guidelines. I thought this discussion might be about that. Shall we then retain articles on medical topics that are unsourced? ..or just suggest possible sources. Does it make sense to retain the article in its present form? When articles that I create are nominated for deletion, which happens more often than I like, I simply continue to work on the article until it is well sourced. The article in its present form should not exist in the encyclopedia. In the spirit of congeniality and to foster consensus I will remove the nomination. To me, its barely worth the time to discuss. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the reviewing administrator - It looks like the consensus is to retain the article and so, for the purposes of not wasting the time of other editors, I would like to withdraw the nomination for deletion. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:34, 4 August 2017 (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.