Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Male pregnancy


 * 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   '''Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. No valid deletion reason given by nom'''. – iride  scent  18:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Male pregnancy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Come on, do we REALLY need an article about this? It's not really needed here, and it's unencyclopedic. I say delete. User:Islaammaged126 14:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - the article needs work (especially the speculative section!), but there is both notability and enough information to keep it a viable article. Aleta  Sing 14:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep no valid rationale given. JuJube (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep: unencyclopedic? How???  It's a valid topic, it's interesting, it's well referenced, what's wrong with it? --  role player 14:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I'm clearly prejudiced in favor of the article, but I'll add that "unencyclopedic" as a reason for deletion is as useless as it is common. "Delete, it's unencyclopedic" translates to "this shouldn't be in the encyclopedia because this shouldn't be in the encyclopedia," encompassing all possible problems at once and not saying much. It's better to specify. Further, our articles on mathematics would be better off in a maths compendium. Our philosophy coverage would be more suited to a dedicated collection. We could blow up the encyclopedia without decreasing the sum total of human knowledge. Users have also been instructed (and the userbase generally agrees) to not care about the performance impact of our articles. In this light, how is anything "needed" here, and how is not being "needed" harmful?  Further further, this is the tenth most popular website in the world. A correspondingly large number of people have opinions about which parts of our content are false, wrong, immoral or bad for business. If we were to start deleting knowledge because we dislike it and not because of its merits as knowledge, how would deleting this because people think it's stupid be different from removing our pictures of Mohammed because *checks* 450 thousand people have signed a petition that declares them insulting? This is meant as a honest question, though it's admittedly a bit unfair.  Further further further, valid articles on ridiculous things are a speciality of Wikipedia's, an edge that no traditional encyclopedia can match due to the limitations of either its scope or its manpower. I could go on about this, but you're probably tired already, so keep in the absence of convincing arguments. --Kiz o  r  15:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I suppose one could argue that nothing in this encyclopedia is "needed", but the concept of male pregnancy is definitely an encyclopedic topic.  JBsupreme (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep No valid rationale given for deletion. This is a fairly well sourced article on a perfectly valid topic, and the nominator'a rationale doesn't hold water. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is about as likely to be deleted as Scientology is. Indeed, it needs some improvement, but it has potential to become a fair article. I might actually work on this one just to see how far it gets. &mdash; Mizu onna sango15 Hello!  17:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, Sorry but "We Don't Need It" isn't a good reason to delete an article. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 17:37, 9 August 2008 (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.