Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anterior fornix erogenous zone


 * 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Anterior fornix erogenous zone

 * – ( View AfD View log )

It appears as though verifiable sources can not be obtained for this article. The article describes the concept of the "Anterior Fornix Erogenous Zone," in other words, a purportedly erogenous zone of the female anatomy.

The sole citation is a transcript of an interview with the concept's author, "Dr. Chua Chee Ann" (whose name appears throughout the article), who therein espouses the "discovery" of aforementioned concept and touts himself as "the discoverer" (sic). The transcript is a part of Dr. Chua Chee Ann's personal website at http://www.aspot-pioneer.com/ wherein aggressive product advertising - centered on the aforementioned concept - accompanies other hyperbole, including the claim that this man is "one of the 500 Greatest Geniuses of the 21st Century." Specifically, Dr. Ann advertises and sells a "technique" for stimulating the erogenous zone. Incidentally, the wikipedia article in question contains further citations which have been searched and found to be misleading (the journal referenced does not contain anything to do with the article).

Google searches have yielded only the veritable Wikipedia page, Dr. Ann's website, and other mentions of the concept in derivative, non-verifiable literature. The references are circular (i.e. they all come back to Dr. Ann's website). The concept has been searched on PUBMED. First, Dr. Chua Chee Chan has not published any peer-reviewed literature. There is only one result returned; importantly, it is an Italian paper whose abstract reads "'Clitoral bulbs, clitoral or clitoris-urethrovaginal complex, urethrovaginal space, periurethral glans, Halban's fascia erogenous zone, vaginal anterior fornix erogenous zone, genitosensory component of the vagus nerve, and G-spot, are terms used by some sexologists, but they are not accepted or shared by experts in human anatomy.'" I caution, however, that a comparison to the "G-spot" is not quite appropriate because the latter concept, which has a Wiki entry of its own, has in spite of its poor reception amongst scientists been researched by more than one person. Thus I discourage the reader from making a voting decision informed by such a comparison.

For these reasons I believe the article ought be deleted specifically pursuant to WP:V (subsection WP:RS, WP:SPS) policy. In lay terms I believe that the subject of this article i.e. the concept it espouses can not be verified by any sources but self-published and unreliable ones. In addition I am fearful that this article may, in fact, directly promote a commercial product. If this is found to be the case, I believe this is a disturbing instance of Wikipedia being exploited for commercial advertising, suggesting a need for more aggressive monitoring. It is worrisome to think some members of the public have been tricked into financially supporting Dr. Ann, and even more worrisome to consider we might be to blame. Thank you. Xabian40409 (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete this is not where Wikipedia should be. Commercial nonsense, advertising, no reliable sourcing, so not Verifiable (and never will be). Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Keep with a deep sigh and eradication of the current content. GBooks discloses that this area is real, or at least thought to be real; for example, I came upon Mangoe (talk) 14:57, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I note that the citation in question also traces back to Dr. Ann's paper, but it appears to me that this and other hits may show more general acceptance of the finding. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Please try clicking on the "books" or "scholar" links above before submitting an AfD. There are dozens of books and articles discussing the area. II  | (t - c) 15:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I did. The articles I located mentioned the concept only in casual discussion or dismissed it as spurious. In other words mention is not equitable with credibility, notability or even verifiability when it comes to scholarly literature. At the bare minimum one expects to find an original article validated by peer review; in this instance there is neither. Furthermore, the only person who's supposedly confirmed this concept's validity is Dr. Chua Chee Ann, who has zero authorship and zero credibility. See above. Thank you. Xabian40409 (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2011 (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.