Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death erection


 * 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. DS 18:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Death erection
Link is not respectful nor tasteful. There must be some other pictures/illustrations that can help people visualize the death erection "phenomenon", which is actually a natural event given under certain circumstances.Frikg 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)frikg Frikg 19:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)frikg
 * Keep the nomination is inappropriate as it does not make an argument for deleting the article, in fact you make the point that the subject is a real event. If you object to the link there are better ways to handle the situation rather than deleting the entire article. More to the point, Wikipedia is not censored: we don't delete articles because you find them distasteful. Gwernol 01:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Interesting, referenced, notable physiological phenomenon. I don't like it is not a good reason to delete an article.  Dar-Ape 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep best article ever. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nickmanning214 (talk • contribs).
 * Delete Article is tasteless, very poorly sourced (one picture doesn't make something encyclopedic) and non-notable. --TommyOliver 02:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep, see no reason to remove it. Diabolical 02:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral - On the one hand, the article is horribly sourced and as-is doesn't meet WP:V. On the other hand, Wikipedia is not censored, and the nominator's entire argument boils down to "this is offensive."  --  Y&#124; yukichigai (ramble argue check) 02:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Kinda gross, but we aren't censored. Speedy Keep. --Dennisthe2 02:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete it. We ain't censored, but I see nothing verifiable here from reliable sources.  With a mere 528 ghits ,I see no evidence it can or will be improved.  Source it from a medical textbook if necessary, but it's got to be something more than a blog. - Aagtbdfoua 03:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep somewhat seems like a "Idon'tlikeit" nom. Anyway, wikipedia is not censored, the article initself just needs some work...which shouldn't be to hard. ~ Arjun 03:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. While the nomination was for the wrong reason, the article does need improvement. The condition could very well be documented by reliable sources. Pomte 03:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, but rename to something more appropriate. It's a valid article, but it should be named something more mature than "Death erection".  RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk''' 03:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with keep and rename. How about "post-mortem erection"? Means the same thing but is more scientific. "death erection" could be a redirect.Plymouths


 * Keep. Nom has no valid deletion criteria, and I just added a link to a scientist mentioning that the phenomenon is real. DMacks 06:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've added a couple of better references, but the article seems to be using a wholly WP:OR explanation (blood engorgement via gravity) which is not supported by what I can find. Needs more rewriting to sources. The name isn't really used in literature, but there isn't a specific name for it that I can find other than "postmortem priapism". --Dhartung | Talk 08:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename. It's referenced and noteworthy.  I like "Postmortem priapism" with redirects from "postmortem erection" and "death erection," personally, but am open to better ideas. -FisherQueen (Talk) 12:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The references do not support the article. See review of references Talk:Death_erection.  Jeepday 14:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Jeepday. The "references" do not actually support this article at all. The first is sheer speculation. The following two have nothing to do with the phenomenon described. And the last is a forum post, which is not an reliable source. That leaves us with an unsourced, unverifiable article full of original research. -- Kesh 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The last is a message from a scientist speaking near his area of expertise. The forum is at least sanity-checked and the contributors verified by other experts. Not quite referreed academic journal, but not some anon poster on blogspot. See "Non-scholarly sources" in WP:RS. DMacks 16:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources that would open do not appear to be reliable ones. The book of wierd medical anomalies is from the 1890's and cites things anecdotally going back to the 1700's. It is not at all a trustworthy source for medical information today. There is a photograph which could be a hoax. There is a comment from a blog, and there is a cite to a WebMD site which I could not get to open, but even if it did, one possible citation is not "multiple." Edison 16:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep sourced, encyclopaedic. No arguments presented for deletion. WilyD 18:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Though the reason given in the nomination is invalid grounds for deletion, this article has no reliable sources documenting notability and authenticity. The first and fourth are unreliable and unusable sources by Wikipedia standards, the second source does not mention death erection, and the third concerns neck trauma, which is totally unrelated. Nick Graves 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The neck-trauma article contains a list entitled "Signs of spinal cord or brachial plexus injury", which states "Priapism and loss of the bulbocavernous reflex may occur". That supports the claim that erections can result from neck trauma, which is certainly what hanging creates, so that's an apparently reliable source confirming the effect in some situations (though not for the reasons or situations described earlier in the wiki page). DMacks 19:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The second source, which you say "does not mention death erection", contains the sentence, "Death by hanging is often accompanied by partial erection." It is a medical text published in 1900. Since there are medical sources documenting that cerebellar or spinal injury is the cause of priapism in dead people, I don't know why pointing out that it also causes priapism in people who survive their injury is a real problem. --Dhartung | Talk 22:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional Weak Keep condition on renaming and better sourcing, although this condition exists, better sources are needed then photos and a 110 year old book of medical anomalies.-- danntm T C 19:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep The tastefulness of an article is not criteria for deletion. .V. -- (TalkEmail)  06:13, 27 January 2007 (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.