Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of men famous for being well endowed


 * 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 DELETE. Ok, so fur numerical purposes, the following are discounted:
 * 1) Eamon84
 * 2) Wikipedian2005
 * 3) Telestylo
 * 4) Simonrexfan
 * 5) Promisekeeper2005
 * 6) Thearticulator
 * 7) Shadow demon

Additionally, Shard and Robin Johnson each have around 10 Wikipedia: space edits and I'm usually minded to numerically remove them too. Angr's actual vote is a little unclear, but given the current state of the list and the apparent lack of persuasion among other deleters (i.e. not referenced adequately for them), it sounds more like a delete. In any case, excluding all the names I mentioned so far, I get 25d-11k. Including them all I get 28d-11k (or 27d if Angr's a delete). Further, Brazilfantoo's Wikipedia: space edits are almost exclusively to this AfD and so I could discount on that basis. Given the considerable energy invested here by that editor, however, for the numerics they are counted, and it would be hard to give the debate a sound reading without taking account of what they say. Whichever way, we're numerically over two-thirds and there is lots of participation. So is there a good reason to raise the deletion threshold? Well, from reading the debate, it is illuminating that the list of 'references' that is cited twice are actually just pictures and to reach a factual conclusion from them necessarily demands interpretation. That has been demonstrated quite clearly here to fall below the standards of NPOV and NOR in the opinion of significantly many participants. The references in the article clearly haven't satisfied many people either, and they don't appear to actually deal with the individuals in the article, with one possible exception. Lacking that kind of verification, the list is evidently below WP:V too. It is also apparent that the deleters are not in the least, in a single case, persuaded by the keepers and so I do not think there has been a change of perception during the debate as sometmies happens. It is often telling when the first response to the nomination is "invalid because I don't like the reason"; you have to counter the reason, not put your fingers in your ears. I also have no time at all for the parts of the debate centering on accusations of wanton censorship: it's just such a bald assumption of bad-faith that it doesn't fly; and I know enough of Shreshth91 that I genuinely don't think s/he'd nominate any article for that reason alone. Short answer: I don't find any successfully formulated and defended reason to consider that something in the region of 70% or more is not a reasonable threshold as oftentimes used in AfD closures, and so the deletes have it. -Splash talk 01:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

List of men famous for being well endowed
This article is totally POV. Should be deleted as nonsense. It's unverifiable and is spreading unverifiable rumours. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  09:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. Suggesting deletion on the grounds of either POV or nonsense are both spurious. Please give a proper reason why you think this article should be deleted. --DannyWilde 10:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think this article should be kept, for the reasons I stated on the discussion page. First, the very first paragraph of the page about penis size talks about the fact that penis size is important to men. Second, if there is going to be a page on Wikipedia about size queens, then why not a page about the kind of men that the size queens would like? Third, this is not POV because some of these men have been featured in videos and/or movies that demonstrate that they are indeed well endowed; and this page is not truly whether these specific men truly are well endowed, but that they have become famous for being well endowed (the fact that we don't have any pictures of Milton Berle nude never intereferred with the fact that he became famous for being well endowed). Go look at the page on Milton Berle; everyone who knows about him knows that he was famous for being well endowed, but no one felt they could mention that on the page about him because they didn't think it would be "proper." This page gives them a place to mention something about Milton Berle that he was very, very famous for! Why is it proper to have a page about nude celebrities on the internet, size queens, penis size, penis enlargement, and not a page on something that is often discussed in popular culture?  If anyone can give me a good reason, then I'll vote for deletion. Until then, I say keep. (Did any of you see the Comedy Central roast of Pamela Anderson? Half of that special was made up of the comedians cracking jokes about Tommy Lee's endowment! And from what I have heard, that special was the highest rated program in Comedy Central history, therefore it is notable!) -- Brazilfantoo 10:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment again. This discussion should not even be taking place. No valid reason to delete this article has been given. The article obviously is not point-of-view, and it is obviously not nonsense. I would vote to keep the article if I thought this was a genuine discussion, but the AfD nomination itself has not been justified at all and should probably be regarded as vandalism. Further, the AfD nomination was not properly carried out according to the Wikipedia procedure, and this article still is not showing up properly on the above page. --DannyWilde 11:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Response to response. Thanks for clarifying. Interesting comments. I'm not too familiar with the whole deletion process. -- Brazilfantoo 11:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The following link explains how to list a page for deletion: Articles for deletion/Log/Today. I suggested a page for deletion once, and two of my pages, Kyabetsu Taro and Don Tacos were also submitted for deletion, so I'm familiar with the process. Anyway, you have a week to sort this out. --DannyWilde 11:40, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
 * This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now.  Keep; valid subject; the proper response to POV is to edit it out, and the proper response to "nonsense" (in this sense, at least) is to insist on proper citations. &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 01:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Actually I was in a bit of hurry.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  06:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Besides being sophomoric, Wikiepdia should never be used to spread POV rumor and inuendo. Stu 02:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a valid concept for an article, whether or not the individual entries are valid. The entry I submitted, Jimi Hendrix, is well documented, and a plaster cast was made and at one point displayed at an art gallery. --DannyWilde 02:43, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. My initial reaction when I saw the article was afd (as I commented on the talk page). Then I thought about it long and hard. Changed my mind. --JJay 03:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - this thing has no place on Wikipedia, is largely unverifiable, and inherrantly POV. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unverifiable &mdash;Wahoofive (talk) 05:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia, not to mention unverfiable. -- Kjkolb 05:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Verifiable in many cases, and a part of popular culture and world history. -- Emanon84 05:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: User's fifth edit. -R. fiend 23:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Actually, it's not verifiable in many cases.  Most of it is rumormongering.  And as for the claim that it's a part of world history?!  Geez, where did you to go school? StarryEyes 08:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I first found this page via the Tommy Lee page, and that page references his large endowment. So, I think this page has merit. You can't really say that this page spreads "rumors" or "innuendo" when everything said on this page is already said on other Wikipedia pages. -- Wikipedian2005 05:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: User's fifth edit. -R. fiend 23:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV and non-notable! It has the whole cause and effect thing backwards anyways.  freshgavin ΓΛĿЌ 05:54, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is POV nonsense. "Well-endowed" isn't an objective category and many of the entries are rumor-based, totally unfit in any encyclopedia. Telestylo 06:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. An unusual page, to be sure. But some men are famous for this, so why not have a page about it? -- Simonrexfan 06:19, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: User's second edit. -R. fiend 23:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: how about "List of women famous for having big breasts?" or "List of women famous for having tight vaginas?" -- Kjkolb 06:21, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is already List of celebrities with breast implants. I don't know if there is any equivalent vagina page. --DannyWilde 06:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. We already have a page like that: size queen. This page is nothing but a list of women who like men with big penises. If this is notable, then why isn't a page on the flipside of this notable? You basically have a page here saying "These women are famous for liking well endowed men," so how is it not acceptable to have a page that says "these men are famous for being well endowed"? -- Brazilfantoo 06:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: those lists are inappropriate as well. -- Kjkolb 06:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. And what gives you the right to say that? Listen, you may not like it, but the issue here isn't your own moral tastes. Milton Berle was a Hollywood legend, and hardly anyone can ever refer to him without referencing the legend around his big penis. The same goes for Tommy Lee. The same goes for other men. The point here is that this is a part of our culture, whether you like it or not. -- Brazilfantoo 06:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: you misunderstand, I have no moral objection to this (or homosexuality, pornography, bestiality or necrophilia...). The problem is that it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It is for appropriate for tabloids, as others have pointed out. -- Kjkolb 07:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. By what criteria do you judge that it isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia? First of all, fame itself is encyclopedic. Penis is encyclopedic. Penis size is encyclopedic. Penis enlargement is encyclopedic. Lists of celebrities who fall into various categories is apparently an encyclopedic thing (because they're all over Wikipedia). So how is it "not encyclopedic" to combine all of the above into a list of men famous for being well endowed? This just boils down to your personal opinion. And while you're at it, please explain to me why a list of women who have had breast implants and who are size queens is not encyclopedic either. -- Brazilfantoo 07:37, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: For the same reason that a list of tall actors isn't encyclopedic. It's trivial and arbitrary. However, these lists are even worse because they are based on rumor and conjecture. An encyclopedia needs verifiability. It's hard for a celebrity to hide the fact that he's 4'10", but if he says he has a footlong penis, he gets put in an encyclopedia for it, which is essentially the evidence given in some of the names on the list (Bill Maher, for one). Even the ones for which there is visual evidence, you're just going on "it looks big." It should be quantifiable. Also, it seems that some of the men were flaccid. That's a problem because some men don't get much bigger when they have an erection. The implant list has the same problem. For some it is easy to tell because their breasts have big scars and look like plastic bags full of water. For others, it is just going by "they appear to be large, and if a woman isn't fat, they couldn't be that big" or "she developed too fast" kind of thing. For the size queens, it comes down to trivia as well. How about a list of celebrities who like bunnies or chocolate? (oh god, I hope we don't have one of these). As for this information being in the biographies, I would say only if it is an important part of the person's notability, like Tommy Lee or Pamela Anderson. -- Kjkolb 09:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep only if "well endowed" can be specifically defined in terms of inches and centimeters and if all entries are verifiable. In other words, no one can be listed just for being rumored to have a big dick. Also, the title must be adhered to: List of men famous for being well endowed. Milton Berle was famous, and he may have been well endowed, but he wasn't famous for being well endowed. Men who are famous for being well endowed are almost entirely porn stars like Kevin Dean and Rick Donovan. If these criteria can't be met, then delete. --Angr/undefined 06:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Milton Berle didn't become famous for his size, but his size WAS famous. It was talked about all the time, and it is discussed on the talk page of his Wikipedia page. Maybe the name of the page needs to be changed to something like, "Famous Men Who Are Known for Being Well Endowed" or something like that. But disagreeing with the title of the page is hardly a reason to delete the page. Renaming the page sounds more logical. -- Brazilfantoo 07:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Several of the voters in this discussion have extremely short lists (in one case only two edits, in another only five) of "user contributions". Also, can someone explain why people keep saying the article is POV? I don't understand that comment. It doesn't seem any more "point of view" than a list of long bridges or deep tunnels to me. --DannyWilde 06:50, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Reply to comment. User contributions may not necessarily affect judgement (even though their lack of experience may be unsettling) but the fact remains that all valid votes are counted, irrespective of number of contributuions. ALso, this list is POV because who gets to decide which of these men are famous for large endowments. For example, Milton Berle was famous and he may have had a large endowment, but he was not necessarily famous for it. Same is the case for Tommy Lee. Also, there aren't any sources or pics proving these claims. Most of the links are to blog sites holding discussions about these claims and nowhere is even one source stated. Rumormongering is not a part of what Wikipedia is about--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  07:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * What you say about "equal votes for all" contradicts the official Wikipedia policy document on deletions. About POV, your opinion makes no sense; the same logic could be applied to any Wikipedia article at all. Who decides who is in the article is the editors of Wikipedia. As for verifiability, several of the claims, such as the ones about Tommy Lee, or Jimi Hendrix, in the document can be verified, and there are indeed pictures, so it is clearly not rumour mongering. --DannyWilde 07:25, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It can hardly be "rumormongering" when we have a video of Tommy Lee having sex with Pamela Anderson and it is evident from the video that he is about four inches bigger than the average man. -- Brazilfantoo 07:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Is the average man really only 2 inches long when erect? I've seen the video and I must say I was underwhelmed by Tommy Lee's dick size. --Angr/undefined 12:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of it is unverifiable.  StarryEyes 08:28, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Good & fun article, indeed part of pop culture, so important too. And Tommy Lee certainly is verifiable sadly. The Minister of War 09:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep only the verifiable cases and purge the rest of the entries from the list. (BTW, comparing this to breasts is kind of a non-issue. Breasts are often easier to see, so it's easier to get an idea of their size. - Mgm|(talk) 10:17, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. This is another of those "difficult to maintain but potentially valid" lists that come up on AfD often. Keep because penis size is a verifiable and NPOV concept, and because page could potentially be updated (note it says "famous for being", not "men who are" well endowed). Keep, but if it comes up again without some improvement I may change to delete. Batmanand 12:18, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete uverifiable and pointless as many people on Wikipedia may be well endowed but are either dead or if alive will likely not be prepared to prove it. Arniep 12:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. The topic of which man is well-endowed is quite common in my experience and obviously is a matter of interest to people. For example, Errol Flynn was reputed to be so, and is described as being so (euphemistically) in David Niven's book "Bring on the Empty Horses". True or not, the story is famous. Even if the man is not well endowed in reality, as is said above to be the case for Tommy Lee, surely the fact he is famous for being well-endowed but isn't really so is notable as well. I don't see the point of deleting entries because the man is proved not to be well endowed but is rumoured to be, or is rumoured to be. Very widespread rumours themselves are notable if referenced, whether true or not. --DannyWilde 14:44, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, POV title (contains slang), difficult to verify or maintain. Andrew pmk | Talk 19:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * About the title, the article was renamed to "well-endowed" before being submitted for deletion. --DannyWilde 03:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete listcruft and not WP:V. The only person on the list who is WP:V as far as I know is Lee, and that is a case of the myth being larger than life (no pun intended)... besides, the list is incomplete without an "Isotope23" entry.--Isotope23 19:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Ron Jeremy's penis is verifiably big . Simon Rex's penis is verifiably big. Warren Cuccurullo's penis is verifiably big. Tommy Lee has a verifiably big penis . Priapus' penis is verifiably big . R. Kelly has a verifiably big penis . You are the one with the unverifiably big penis! -- Brazilfantoo 23:52, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Heh, where do you think the "23" came from?--Isotope23 02:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've just looked at all of Brazilfantoo's pictures, and Simon Rex doesn't seem that big to me, and Tommy Lee also seems to be average sized, in fact. There is a big white blob in front of R. Kelly, so that is not verification. I'd suggest removing Tommy Lee and Simon Rex from the list and putting them into "people rumoured to be big who aren't really". --DannyWilde 13:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, listcruft, unverifiable, inherently POV as to inclusion criteria. MCB 20:15, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable. "His ex-girlfriend said so" is not verification. Let's have a List of people famous for having low IQs and then put Bush on it because everyone says he's dumb! Great idea! Who writes this? -R. fiend 22:04, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a part of pop culture. Carson Daly's ex-girlfriend, Tara Reid (who is a famous woman by the way), said on the Howard Stern show (the most successful radio show in history), that he is well endowed. Later, Sarah Silverman made the comment on Carson Daly's 30th birthday, broadcast on Mtv and VH1, "Carson is known for having a big penis...." The issue at hand is not really whether these men do have big penises, but that they have a reputation for it. If you don't like the idea of having a page about reputations, then you have to delete and/or edit half of the pages on Wikipedia. -- Brazilfantoo 23:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh? And which half would that be? -R. fiend 01:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yeah, it's an unusual article but it's still something people talk about. -- Promisekeeper2005 23:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: User's fifth edit. -R. fiend 23:32, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable/terminally POV. --Carnildo 23:47, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I repeat: ** Ron Jeremy's penis is verifiably big . Simon Rex's penis is verifiably big. Warren Cuccurullo's penis is verifiably big. Tommy Lee has a verifiably big penis . Priapus' penis is verifiably big . R. Kelly has a verifiably big penis . -- Brazilfantoo 00:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Evidently you are quite passionate for this topic, and I am sure it will eventually come to a head, but I still think that this list needs to be eliminated as being useless listcruft. Why not simply place the verifiable "greatness" of these men in their articles on Wikipedia? Stu 00:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: You keep saying "verifiably big." What precise size constitutes "verifiably big"? Who determines this standard? You? The ISO? tregoweth  01:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I keep saying "verifiably big" in response to others. If you want a definition of what "big" is, then read the page on penis size. The more direct answer to your question is: the public decided who is "verifiably big". VH1 has a special called "I Love the 90s." In that special, there was a man saying that Tommy Lee was huge and a lot of black guys (this guy was black) were saying, "Oh, he's like us." (Those were the words of this black sportscaster, not mine. If you don't like those words, take it up with him and VH1. I'm just reporting on what was said on the show.) This is actually a ridiculous question you ask. All of these questions are really just attempts to justify censorship. -- Brazilfantoo 07:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. As I stated in the beginning, this page was made in response to the Milton Berle talk page wherein some said that they didn't feel they could mention his endowment on his main page. I felt it was ridiculous that they couldn't mention it on his main page -- when it is one of the things he was most famous for! This was a part of this man's life and his body; why should it be something you can't mention about him? So, I started this article, and now I have to contend with people saying it's suitable, etc. To answer your question: I can't mention these men's greatness on their own pages because the reference would eventually be deleted for the very reasons that people are saying that this page should be deleted. It appears to me that some people on Wikipedia, and the world over, simply have a problem with the penis itself. -- Brazilfantoo 01:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. So basically you are saying that you knew that the information would have been deleted from the main articles and so you decided to create a new page about it. Are you confessing that this article was knowingly created even after you knew that the topic was unworthy of any space on Wikipedia?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  06:25, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think he's saying the motivation for this deletion is censorship. --DannyWilde 06:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I'm saying. -- Brazilfantoo 07:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. According to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors so your arguments about censorship are baseless. Actually, if this content was added in the articles, it would be deleted as unverifiable rumormongering. You can add this content to the main articles and if you find that it is deleted you will have conclusive proof that the Wikipedia community feels the same.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  08:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, the reasons you originally gave for deleting the article are spurious, so the motivation for the deletion is, presumably, censorship. Since, as you state, Wikipedia is not censored, this article should not be deleted, and what is more, I question the integrity of attaching inapplicable labels like "POV" or "nonsense" as meaningless scare words in an effort to censor articles. --DannyWilde 08:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * But, if you hadn't noticed, this article is largely unverifiable and is rumormongering also. So censorship is not the reason for this AFD. If you notice even one place where censorship was declared the motive for this AFD, even in passing, please point it out.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  09:34, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You seem to be implicitly admitting that the POV and nonsense arguments were invalid. That is some improvement in the quality of the discussion. As for verification, it is an important point, but that is more a matter for individual entries than an article-wide problem. I've added three entries, Jimi Hendrix, Errol Flynn, and Shunga. Jimi Hendrix is clearly verifiable, since numerous Hendrix biographies mention the fact. Similarly for Errol Flynn, at the very least David Niven's book makes the claim. Similarly Shunga have been displayed at art galleries, etc. and published many times. That deals with the three entries I've made to the article. The other two mythical entries similarly should be easy to verify from printed sources. As for the rest of it, some of them, such as Tommy Lee, appear to be wrong and should be removed from the article or put into a different section. --DannyWilde 14:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not implying anything. Notice the also above. If I am implying anything, then you have a remarkable way of twisting everything that I say. A little while back, we were discussing why Brazilfantoo felt that the content would be deleted from the main articles. Since we have all decided that censorship wasn't the motive, then can either of you please tell me why he felt so, or was it, as I said, a confession that this info is vandalism?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  16:44, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * We have not all decided that. I believe this is a censorship issue and that censorship was the motive behind the call for deletion. I'm sorry you feel that I'm twisting your words, but in all fairness I don't think I am. I am trying to give a reasoned response to why I don't think this article should be deleted. --DannyWilde 03:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless textual references added for everything before end of AfD. JYolkowski // talk 01:48, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete most entries are non-verified. --Vsion 05:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Then wouldn't the proper response be to edit out the non-verified entries rather than delete the page altogether? -- Brazilfantoo 07:47, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It seems that you agree that most of the info is unverifiable.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  16:48, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for so many reasons I cannot even list them all, including, PoV, Non-ency., Nonsense, non-verifiable, gossip.... KillerChihuahua 11:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is rather disturbing. Also, factually inaccurate title.. not that I want a simple move mind you.. Just get rid of it, please. --Irishpunktom\talk 18:39, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep weak. came here because of the woods page, heard this about him before. if the page gets cleaned up maybe it has some merit. -- Thearticulator 22:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: User's fourth edit. -R. fiend 23:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete for numerous reasons stated above. tregoweth  23:41, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete probably non verifiable and POV. Not encyclopaedic. chowells 00:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete inherently POV, and how do you cite famousness? -- SCZenz 02:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Very hard to verify, not good info for an encyclopedia. Reasons stated in the above discussion make it perfectly clear that this should be removed.  Fast. Shadow demon 02:17, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete if left unverified. There are a few men who have had their penises (penii?) discussed in the media, such as the aforementioned Tommy Lee. But without those sources, this article is rampant unverified innuendo. I would have no problem with a new article later that verified its sources. --Jacquelyn Marie 04:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Firm Keep but some more sources/evidence needs to be added. But overall, this list stand up to the test of notability. These rumors are part of the pop culture and therefore notable. Youngamerican 22:23, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Rumours? - so you agree these are rumours? Then you should be voting delete because, rumourmongering is not what Wikipedia is about. You can't just keep an article because it's a part of pop culture!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  06:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unverifiable. Shard 02:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. We have TONS of 'Fictional XYZ' lists and TONS of Rumors/Urban Legend lists. Why is this one any different? Staxringold 03:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. Can you name any?--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  07:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't think it can be summed up any better than Let's have a List of people famous for having low IQs and then put Bush on it because everyone says he's dumb! - that said, how can this list possibly exist and have Drew Carey on it, but not Grigori Rasputin?  Sherurcij 07:03, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see any objection to a List of people famous for having low IQs. If Dubya's IQ is provably low, then I don't see any objection to adding him. If there is an untrue rumour that he has a low IQ, I also suggest adding him, and setting the record straight about the untrue rumour. However, as far as I know, there is no such published rumour. The only people I can actually think of famous for having a low IQ are fictional characters, the lead character of the movie "Lawnmower Man" and the novel "Flowers for Algernon". Possibly Homer Simpson also had his IQ tested at some point. More relevant perhaps to the issue of large penises, several articles on people with high intelligence quotients, such as Mensa, do exist on Wikipedia, and there is also List of Mensa International members. However, there is another possibility for a good article: List of men famous for being poorly endowed in here somewhere. Any candidates for entries? --DannyWilde 08:31, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * NO! PLEASE! NO!. Is it you hobby to start unverifiable articles????? BTW, nice edit summary--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  13:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't start the article under discussion. As for the edit summary, you're right, it's interesting that one of the people opposed to the deletion is the first person to actually think of a good reason for deleting the article. --DannyWilde 14:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. At the moment the list could do with some work, but there is nothing wrong with the concept. --Apyule 15:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment - I brag about my large penis size just for laughs, even though it's probably average...does this mean I can make it on the list with Drew Carey, Bill Maher and other celebrities who brag about their penises? Pfft, please, c'mon - there is no way in hell this should stay Sherurcij 19:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete - Listcruft made up of 1/3th rumor, 1/3rd fantasy and 1/3rd conjecture. It has no place on Wiki.  I am unimpressed by arguments along the lines of "Wikipedia already has a list like this!"  Err, no, Wikipedia shouldn't have those either if they're comprised of gossip column rumors.  RGTraynor 11:59, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Del. Have watched this page since its inception to see if the editors might bring it in line with policy. It hasn't because it can't.
 * 1) WP:NPOV. This page is an inherently non-NPOV contruct. There is an attempt on the list to define neutral terms for inclusion: "having a penis bigger than what statistics reveal to be average." I'm not precisely sure of the exact figure, but I believe at least one clinical study has found the average length to be around 5" (in USA). This means that a man with a penis 5.2" long is eligible for inclusion. However, would the page's editors agree? Further consideration should also make apparent that the list's stated inclusion criterion is quite absurd: it means that as long as a man has a penis that is longer than the average, he is eligible for listing, ie. 50% of males. The addition of "famous for" in the title is unhelpful, both due to the vagueness of "famous" (should we include a man with a penis 5" long who is famous for it in his remote village in Obscureland where all the other guys have 4"?) and also because most of the men on the list are not famous for having large penises. A comment was made that the solution to POV problems is not to delete but to edit. This is perfectly true, except when the construct is such that it cannot be brought to NPOV. We routinely delete problematic categories for exactly this reason, for example. To state it another way, it's the same reason List of uncool countries is a red-link.
 * 2) WP:V, WP:NOR. This may be more obvious. How is the info being verified? Many of the Listees are "rumoured", "believed", or "said" to be "well-endowed", which is quite unacceptable for encyclopedic lists. There is a suggestion that videos are sufficient. They aren't, because A. most of the Listees have no video evidence, and if we delete them we'd have almost nothing, and B. it's untrue that videos would help, because of the WP:NPOV problems in 1. For example, the article claims that Tommy Lee is "famous for being well endowed [but] verifiably [isn't]". How do we make that decision neutrally? Was he acceptable per the alleged inclusion criterion of "bigger than average"? (ie. is he bigger than 5"?) If so, how was it decided that he would be labelled "verifiably not well-endowed"? Indeed, how was it decided what length defines "well-endowed"? If that length is X", would X-1" make the owner automatically "not well-endowed"? There are other WP:V concerns. Clinical studies always record the precise method measurement, and the state of the penis. How do we determine from the videos and images what the length actually is? Is it simply: "Oh... that's big. Ok, we can hereby claim that he's famous for being well-endowed?" That's not acceptable for an encyclopedia, IMHO. Regards encephalon  13:20, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Some of those people clearly are in there because they made a lot of jokes about size, and there is no proof that they have any size at all. But, for example, if there was a page "comedians who make jokes about their oversized parts", what would be wrong with that in terms of bias? That is basically what is happening in that section. Also, some men actually are famous for having large penises. Errol Flynn & Jimi Hendrix are good examples here, who fully meet the Wikipedia verifiability criteria. Also, the mythology section is actually worthwhile in itself, in my opinion; it is clearly a common theme in many cultures, and gathering a collection of mythological figures of this type is a valid exercise. As I stated before, I believe the basic motive for the delete votes is censorship, more than anything, and I feel that this censorship is what is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. --DannyWilde 14:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello Danny, thanks for your response. I must disagree. Hendrix and Flynn were not famous for their penises: Hendrix was an iconic pop musician, Flynn an early Hollywood star. They were famous—ie. people had and have an abiding interest in them—principally for those roles. They were not famous on account of their penises; that some people appear to care about their penises cannot be taken to mean that they were famous for them. Kind regards encephalon  20:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, my name isn't Danny. Anyway, you are incorrect, Hendrix and Flynn were both famous for being well-endowed. That may or may not be their principal claim to fame; however, the statement "famous for being well endowed" about Hendrix and Flynn is a factually correct, neutral point of view, and verifiable, statement. --DannyWilde 00:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Hello. I used Danny as a contraction for the username DannyWilde, not because I imagined it was your real name. As to your contentions, I'm afraid they continue to remain unconvincing. I suppose in response to your latest I could write about why, simply because David Niven wrote in a book about Errol Flynn's penis, the factual accuracy of the claim "Errol Flynn was famous for being well-endowed" is not, thereby, supported. Or I could say something about why, since "well-endowment" is an entirely subjective point-of-view, placing names (while explicitly excluding others with objectively very similar "endowments") under the List's title cannot be in concordance with WP:NPOV. Or I could point out that the sole inclusion criterion—silly as it is—is simply being disregarded in favor of non-NPOV judgements such as Tommy Lee... became famous for his large endowment... However, in reality the videos and photos of Lee do not show a notably above average size, and Simon Rex... is famous for his above-average endowment... However, in reality the videos and photos of Rex do not show a notably above average size. But I suspect further discussion with you on this AFD is unlikely to be productive, DannyWilde. All the best encephalon  20:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. That's not what any of those men are famous for. Robin Johnson 14:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
 * comment How is relevant part of American pop culture not at least as notable as middle schools or Pokemon or characters in books? While wikipedia should not be used for rumor-mongering, these are relatively established.  And yes, being an element of pop culture can be notable, and, alas, this is. This article is neutral, the notion of these men being well-equiped is notable, and all I need is evidence of the rumors being common-knowledge for there inclusion.Youngamerican 02:42, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Problem is the list is not neutral, arguably cannot be neutral in its present form, and has very, very serious problems with verifiability and the WP:NOR policy. A good argument could also be made that the list is unencyclopedic, ie. not deserving of a page in a good encyclopedia. I agree that the issue of penis size can be treated encyclopedically—indeed, you could write a book on it—but that is not what this list is. encephalon  20:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is no particular problem with verifiability. The Wikipedia criteria for verification require that there is a published source for the information, from a reputable publisher. The entries which cannot be verified can be removed, but, as I have already stated, several of the entries meet and exceed the "verifiability" criterion. The "no original research" really is unrelated, yet another attempt to tag the article with a "boo boo" word; "Delete, because it's a camembert", without thinking about what "original research" means; in other words, more name-calling, attaching labels like POV, nonsense, etc. etc. in an effort to censor the article. As I stated at the beginning of this discussion, no genuine policy reason to delete this article has been presented. --DannyWilde 02:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As has been previously pointed out, there are profound problems with verifiability. WP:V and WP:RS demand that the claim being made be verified by reference to reputable, independent publications. Claiming that R.Kelly, for example, is "Famous for being well endowed" requires a reference attesting to precisely that claim. A grainy screen shot of a sex video, with his penis completely covered, simply does not do that. Of course, any kind of image wouldn't: we cannot verify "famous for being 'well-endowed'", whatever that really means, with reference to an image. Note too the injunction in policy: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If an editor wishes to claim that an icon like Hendrix is famous for being 'well-endowed', rather than being famous as an iconic pop musician who happens to obtain the usual adolesecent attentions of a coterie of penis enthusiasts, evidence that shows precisely that should be provided. WP:NOR and WP:V, which are closely related, do apply. What's happening here is a few editors are making claims on that page sans evidence; instead they reference images from unreputable websites, and then interpret the images according to a POV, and claim this as evidence (see what's been happening with the Tommy Lee claim, for example). Looking at an image purportedly of Mr. Lee's genitals—just the image—and then claiming in the article that "in reality the... photos of Lee do not show a notably above average size" is a misrepresentation of the source, and suggests a poor understanding of how to use references. To get from [image] → [POV interpretation, eg. "XYZ is famous for a large penis but in fact his penis is not very large"] is to
 * contravene NPOV,
 * contravene WP:V as the claim is unverified (read the claim and ask yourself how an image can substantiate it), and
 * probably contravene WP:NOR, because for this determination to be made not from a study or report or textual reference but from an image suggests these editors are making their own measurements and interpretations when deciding whether to include an entry (and how to word it). Incidentally, I second the call to close this AFD soon, as it is well past the standard 5 days. I hope we won't have to spend much more time discussing this trivial topic. I have felt ridiculous writing about this here, but soldiered on out of regard and concern for Wikipedia and the profound need to maintain encyclopedic standards for our project. Finally, I would like to ask editors on this AFD to consider WP:FAITH and WP:CIVIL. Please do not suggest that your colleagues are acting as "censors," or resort to "name-calling," when they are politely pointing out problems with an article. Regards  encephalon  23:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep we have lists/categories for people being left-handed, having been convicted of drunk driving, and other things that do not indicate why they are famous / worthy of encyclopedic note. it's clearly presented as a list of rumours that must stand up to continual challenges to their validity for being in the list.  this list may see a lot of dispute and change, not to mention vandalisms but there is no reason not to have in some form.  i prefer the name List of men rumored to be or have been well-endowed however, as it more clearly conveys that these people are not just famous for their dick size - Mayumashu 03:50, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * keep - we're talking about what they are famous for, not the fact of their size. Trollderella 03:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Silly list, unencyclopedic, unverifiable, etc..., etc.... Dottore So 11:58, 29 October 20
 * "Silly list" has a grain of truth in it, but is that a valid criteria for deletion? For example List of famous bald people seems faintly silly to me; do you think it should be deleted? Or, since we have seen on this page an opinion that the word "famous" is a point of view word, should it be deleted for containing the word "famous"? Or, how about "bald"? Should we delete it because there is no standard definition of "bald", or should we insist on a verified maximum follicle count? The people saying the article is "unverifiable" or "point-of-view" or "nonsense" just don't know what the words they are using mean. The discussion on this page has not been much more convincing than "Delete it because it's an omelette". Once one type of "it's an omelette" name-calling has been dealt with, we move on to the next attempt to find any applicable tag to delete the article, "Delete it because it's a poached egg", etc. --DannyWilde 13:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I feel a little uncomfortable that many user who have voted keep have very few contribs (less than 10). Also, shouldn't this AFD be closed by now. The given lag time of an AFD in WP:DP is 5 days and it's been more than a week now.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91  ($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|)  10:11, 30 October 2005 (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.