Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rectal malodor

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 delete. Original research by synthesis, which Tepi effectively admits this is, is not allowed. Medical topics and concepts in particular must be clearly based on reliable sources. This means that as long as such sources do not describe this as a distinct symptom, we do not have an article about it. Sorry. Sandstein 09:29, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rectal malodor

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

Pure original research. At first glance, appears to be a well-sourced article about a health topic. Problem is, searching for the phrase "rectal malodor" in Google results in hardly any non-wiki-related links. I haven't examined every single source, but a sampling suggests that this topic is mentioned in larger contexts, but not given any depth of coverage in the sources. In summary, it's a long detailed article about a symptom that only gets passing mention as it relates to other maladies. Also curious is that the author of the article has contributed very little outside of this topic. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. This is an interesting case. Very few hits for the phrase, which seems to originate with the author of this piece, as nearly as I can determine. There is a thread relating to this WP piece at an Irritable Bowel Syndrome self-help message board, started a new British user, pseudonym "ileococcygeus" in which HE STATES:

"This article has been the result of a lot of research on my part. However I am not a GI doc/colorectal surgeon, so my understanding of these topics is perhaps limited. I will continue to add to this article in the future, but it is essentially finished now."

While we appreciate the effort, and the article is of high quality, Wikipedia is not the place to be "breaking" new science. I'm not seeing much evidence that this is a phrase actually used in medicine. I'd be happy to be shown wrong. As it sits this strikes me as pure OR and possibly fringe science. I'll stand aside with this view if use of the phrase can be demonstrated in the scholarly literature — or if there is an equivalent symptom described in the literature with a different name, which would indicate this is a matter of a titling mistake. Nice work on the piece, but this is not the place. Carrite (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The content-creator in the thread mentioned above NOTES that "The rectal malodor, rectal discharge and fecal leakage pages I researched from scratch. The fecal incontinence page was already there, I added "classification" and "normal continence mechanism" paragraphs, plus added references and more detail to several other related topics. Like I said I'm not GI/colorectal surgeon. We need experts to go over these concepts."

I completely agree. We need expert eyes here. If this is good work about an actual symptom described in the literature, it should stand, obviously. But there needs to be some sort of expert input... Carrite (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is original research/synthesis. This subject lacks any verification from reliable sources; I could not find a single article about it at Google Scholar or PubMed. Although many articles are listed in the references, I don't find that any of them are specifically about this subject; this one comes the closest. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research papers; author might consider submitting it to an online publishing host such as Scribd. I suppose this title could be merged/redirected to Flatulence but they don't seem to be the same thing. --MelanieN (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I posted a note to the author on his talk page, and this is his reply on my talk page. I am posting it here because I think he deserves to be heard in this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That article is not original research. This is the first time I have heard mention of wikipedia not allowing "original synthesis" too. You can't say "don't copy" and at the same time say "no original synthesis". All your articles would be deleted for being original synthesis.

This article really does not deserve to be deleted, It is not original research, please see extensive list of previously published references. It contains no original research.

I have so far not found a "synthesis" on this topic, so you could call it original, but that is no reason for it to be deleted, since so many other wikipedia articles are original synthesis. I want to appeal this decision, but I am also prepared to rewrite the article if it will prevent this deletion (it is still developing anyway).

This is my second article that has been accused of original research, and the other page was approved. Its getting annoying. Tepi (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment When a Google search for the phrase "rectal malodor" turns up nearly zero hits outside of wiki, it suggests that the phrase by itself may be a neologism or otherwise a topic not given a lot of attention to by itself. No one is trying to discredit or malign your work; it's just that several seasoned editors here find that your work violates our WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH policies. All of the "delete" !votes here do a fine job of describing exactly what is wrong with the article in terms of Wikipedia policies. Please read those for a better understanding of the issue. (As Carrite noted, your work is "high quality"; it's just not appropriate for Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The phrase "rectal malodor" does not appear in medical textbooks or on pubmed. The "classification" section is original... However, this is a medical topic that is not original, papers and textbooks would discuss it indirectly, talking about foul smelling rectal discharges, or tumors of the perianal region that are malodorous. You can see that there is not really any new work here, as there are so many wikipedia pages for all the conditions listed. I wanted to make a page of links for people who had this symptom. I would ask for more time to support the page with further references so you can see that it is not a new concept, perhaps I can find a strong reference that will remove the accusation of orignal synthesis too.Tepi (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article doesn't necessarily need more sources. What needs to be demonstrated is that the term "rectal malodor" is used in several published sources to describe a specific medical symptom. Show that A, B, and C have used that term, say in the index of medical text or in the body of published journal articles, and much of the criticism here fades away. Or if there is another medical term for the symptom, point to that. I personally wasn't able to find any indication that such sources are extant. Just point them out is all... Carrite (talk) 00:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I beleive I read the term "rectal fetor", referring to a sign of a particular condition, however the source is old. Modern day medical terminology would call this "rectal malodor", inline with related signs/symptoms like rectal bleeding, rectal discharge. I disagree that the article needs the title changing, I think it is the most appropriate title. I will have time to work on this more this weekend, but it means that rectal discharge stays looking very untidy. I think I will easily find many papers that will save this article, I did very superficial searches when writing it initially. I suppose the classification section is original, and would have to go, similarly with the differential diagnosis section, although it is just common sense rather than original research if you ask me.Tepi (talk) 01:40, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking out the word "keep" from the beginning of this paragraph. You can comment as much as you like, but you should only "vote" once. --MelanieN (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2012 (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.