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 Speedy keep‎. Anonymous 15:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breast implant illness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I've never attempted to invoke WP:TNT before, but I'm going to go ahead and try here, very cautiously. This is a stub article on a notable topic created by a user who has been blocked twice from creating new articles following their history of mass-creating short, poorly written, and poorly sourced stubs (like this one). There is absolutely nothing useful on this page or in its history. The sources are obviously inadequate for a medical topic. If someone wanted to improve this article, they would have to restart from scratch, and I mean that without a hint of exaggeration. Therefore, I am carefully suggesting we TNT this to encourage this to happen. To be clear, I understand that this is almost never a good reason to delete an article, and I understand that opposing views exist, such as WP:TNTTNT. Still, even after reading through opposing essays on the matter, this looks to be an extremely rare case where nothing associated with this article is salvageable (neither what's currently there nor in its history). I am fully expecting backlash over this, but I would like to emphasise that I wholeheartedly agree that using deletion as cleanup is almost always a bad thing. This is an extremely uncommon case where the entire article is unusable. All that said, and while I myself don't feel qualified enough to do so, if anyone else had the time to improve this, I would withdraw my nomination immediately, as again, notability is not the problem. Anonymous 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Medicine. Anonymous 02:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — I am not going to pretend that I don’t understand the TNT argument or have never considered it myself. That said, I’m not sure I understand it, here. It’s a stub. Just work on it as-necessary. From a quick Google, it appears that the topic is likely notable. (Not to get into WP:OR territory, but as a side-note, it’s not a proper diagnosis because it sounds like it is a mild post-operative infection) That said, it being a stub — in my opinion — works against the TNT argument. It would need to be just a huge set of information along with egregious errors for me to consider wiping an article completely. The title is salvageable, no? Breastcancer.org and the Mayo Clinic both refer it as BII. Surely someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine could assist with this?

MWFwiki (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The topic certainly seems notable - a quick search reveals articles in The Guardian [1], the Australian ABC [2], Spectrum News [3] and the BBC [4]. Surely it would be possible to expand and improve the article, rather than deleting it? The information in it doesn't seem incorrect, just not appropriately expressed. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The news sources demonstrate notability, so they have a valid function, and what is said appears to be true. It's surprising anyone would attempt to write a med. article without using any MEDRS sources. Here are some:

• Cohen Tervaert, J. W., et al. "Breast implant illness: scientific evidence of its existence." Expert review of clinical immunology 18.1 (2022): 15-29.

• Kaplan, Jordan, and Rod Rohrich. "Breast implant illness: a topic in review." Gland Surgery 10.1 (2021): 430.

• Magnusson, Mark R., et al. "Breast implant illness: a way forward." Plastic and reconstructive surgery 143.3S (2019): 74S-81S.

• Newby, Jill M., et al. "Understanding breast implant illness." Aesthetic surgery journal 41.12 (2021): 1367-1379.

There are plenty more med. sources available. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. There are more sources available too, but the ones linked above should prove sufficient for notability. WP:TNT doesn't seem appropriate here given it's only a five-sentence stub. Procyon117 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MWFwiki, @RebeccaGreen, @Chiswick Chap, @Procyon117: Alright, alright, everyone. I understand. I've decided I will take matters into my own hands and attempt to personally rewrite this page. Even if I can't make it perfect, I can hopefully at least make it better than what it is now (and better sourced). Anonymous 14:58, 19 January 2025 (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.