Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meatotomy


 * 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. Consensus is that this is a notable medical operation. The "delete" opinions are discounted for ban evasion and for stating the opposite of WP:NOTCENSORED. This does not prevent any stubbing or rewriting as deemed editorially appropriate.  Sandstein  08:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Meatotomy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable topic, unreferenced for 7 years, probably just something someone made up one day so they could include pictures of their penis Tryphaena (talk) 21:19, 22 October 2011 (UTC) indefinitely blocked user - sockpuppet of Echigo mole / A.K.Nole
 * Speedy keep. Extremely bad faith and disruptive nomination by a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked . This is the technical name for a surgical operation.  It is related to the condition of meatal stenosis. More sourcing should be added, but the article is fine and accurate. Mathsci (talk) 22:24, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete The images provided are groteque, this is a strange and creepy sexual fetish, This has not a single reliable source failing WP:GNG, has no notability and does not belong on this website. If for some reason this article is kept the pictures need to be removed. What if a child found that with the random article button it could be traumatizing to them, I could understand if this was a medically nessisary surgery that we would host it on our website, but it is not. Either way pictures like this should not be on here, I find it horrible we ever allowed such filth on our website, I would like to see a WP:SALT. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 04:03, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. These remarks seem remarkably ill-informed, as this is an operation to treat a medical urological condition. Twenty seconds searching on google books will reveal that. Three reliable sources have been added. The article is about a medical operation which is used for treating medical conditions such as urethral stricture and meatal stenosis, which links to this article and which is mentioned in the lede. The external medical web site in the article already described the operation explicitly and it is a trivial matter to find references to "meatotomy" in medical textbooks. I have added the two WP:RS mentioned above to the article as well as another on-line reference for its use in meatal stenosis. The bad faith nomination was by a long term disruptive editor on wikipedia. Mathsci (talk) 05:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Meatal stenosis or stubbify and rewrite. While the article iteself requires massive amounts of sourcing (and thus should be redirected or stubified until this happens) the topic itself appears to be notable (even with a very quick google books & scholar search). Thus it does not fail WP:GNG and I would remind User:Phoenix B 1of3 of two things a) notability assesses topics on their inherent notability not just the sources used in articles; and b) that while I find the images disgusting myself wikipedia is not censored. Neither of these two issues are in any way reasons to delete or apply WP:SALT-- Cailil  talk 16:55, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously, because of the thousands of reliable sources found by clicking on the links to Google Books and Google Scholar spoon-fed in the nomination. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:41, 23 October 2011 (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.