Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sexual Records


 * 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 of the debate was merge. Johnleemk | Talk 14:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Sexual Records
I don't want to vote conclusively on this, but I'm unsure whether this page fits criteria. Can't hurt to bring it up here to question? Mithent 20:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Talk about your vandal magnets. Perhaps a rename to "Vandalise this article" would be in order. Beyond, that, verification. Does anyone know who really has the biggest schlong?


 * Strong Keep Hi, i'm afraid i don't understand your vandalise argument, as for who has the longest 'scholong' it may not be definitive but it is the best record maintained all information is factual though. By the way whilst you posted the notice i was unable to save the changes which were quite substantial, i was wondering if there would be anyway of getting them back?


 * Use the 'back' button on your browser > cut and paste the edits > cancel editing the page > 'edit this page' > paste the edits back in > save the page. You can also sign your comments by using four unseparated tildes ~ ~ ~ ~.   (aeropagitica)   21:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Random "essay". Osomec 00:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP is not a mirror or possibly speedy delete as a copyvio CSD A8 of sexualrecords.com.  Not word for word, but a close paraphrase that is uncredited.  E.g. http://www.sexualrecords.com/WSRphysiology.html#largest_penis . There are already articles on at least some of these subjects, e.g. Human penis size. Esquizombi 00:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep- If it is not word for word, and by quite a margin, it is someones work therefore it is not in breach f copyright. Therefore your argumen has fallen. Clearly it is merely a reference of key information which marks the boundary. This article just needs some work to bring it up to a standard suitable for wikipedia, and possibly make it more definate in its staements. Otherwise I think it is a very useful, helpful, factual and unique article. 86.137.0.202 16:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I agree with the above statement!!! Let me work on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingstonjr (talk • contribs)


 * Comment I do believe an uncredited paraphrase as a derived work is in fact a copyright violation. With proper sources this could be merged to Human penis size and Breast but I have a problem with the way this was added without reference to its obvious source.  Better to simply delete this and add the rewritten and sourced information to those articles. Esquizombi 02:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. There's no encyclopedic reason to conflate these items (as done by the referenced website).  Put the penis records under Penis and the breast records under Breast.  These articles already discuss the issue of size, etc.  Slowmover 16:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with penis and breastNigelthefish 16:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or Weak merge; these aren't even "Sexual Records" they are more like "anatomical records" Carlossuarez46 00:53, 22 March 2006 (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.