Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G-spot amplification


 * 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 Procedural early keep. No one is proposing that the information in the article ought to be removed from Wikipedia entirely. Therefore, there is no point in having the discussion here. A merge discussion can take place on the article talk page if people feel it is necessary. NW ( Talk ) 03:57, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

G-spot amplification

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

To determine if the topic is notable enough for a more prominent write up (new section) in G-Spot, should be merged, or deleted outright because it verges on Advertising. RoyBoy 04:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge to G-spot Does not meet stand alone general noteabillity clause for a stand alone article. -- Sk8er5000 (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep This article covers G-spot amplification, G-spot augmentation and G-shot. Now whilst this may or may not be the best place for it, it is certainly a notable medical procedure and should not be merged to G spot. Polargeo (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, references show significant coverage, satisfying WP:GNG. Werner Heisenberg (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- Pcap  ping  11:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per  and ABC news, but it looks like it needs some WP:NPOV rewriting. Pcap  ping  11:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Notable procedure, more balanced info now. Matto  paedia  Have a yarn  12:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong merge - just tip this junk/drivel over to a brief mention in G-spot (something that recently strongly suggested is a myth, making this a placebo proceedure of a myth). Reliable secondary source (per WP:MEDRS) would use to indicate but one of a number of cosmetic vaginal procedures with "lack of data supporting the efficacy". That anybody sought cosmetic surgery for the G spot I suppose mildly amusing, but that belongs in article on G-spot as a one liner noting this American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (reliable source) view. I disagree with Werner Heisenberg's view that the referencees show significant coverage - some titilating TV commentary does not make notability (most of those refs probably should be removed as failing to meet WP:MEDRS) - but if some firm statistic brought to bear on numbers performed (eg 10,000 procedures in US in last couple years) then yes notable for being a significant minority viewpoint, but otherwise per WP:NPOV "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all". David Ruben Talk 18:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Amusing, yes, and it needs to be rewritten, but because of  and ABC news, it should be an article (with due weight given to the journal published source and the rest of the cruft and iffy sources removed).  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I removed the cruft, non-reliable sources, and text not supported by sources. Google scholar lists 14 sources: it's notable. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Given the fact that the AMA thought it notable enough to actually have a position on it, the fact that there are several reliable sources and finally because the project isn't running short on hard drive space. If amplification worked for Fender and Marshall, there's no reason it shouldn't for G-Spots. Only in America folks! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2010 (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.