Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical uses for human semen


 * 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   merge to Semen. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Medical uses for human semen

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

inherently unverifiable original research, since semen has never been used medically. Also appears to be a POV fork of information removed from the Semen article by consensus. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhere. To my surprise there's something verifiable in the article. Would prefer a merge (back?) to Semen or a partial merge to Seminophagia but failing that, rename to "Medical effects of human semen" and retain. JJL (talk) 03:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with JJL, at least sources 2 and 10 fit WP:RS. I'll go with merge into Semen and redirect, because I don't believe enough research has been done into this topic to justify a separate article. Did the nominator even tried to read the references? This is clearly not OR. Also, it doesn't need to be used medically for this information to be discovered, sometimes a scientifically valid research into a topic comes with unexpected discoveries... --> RUL3R *flaming 03:10, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is ... unusual, to say the least. There seem to be references which stand up, so merge to semen.  81.110.104.91 (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete This bizarre article (which I actually created, in an attempt to prevent the main Semen article from looking ridiculous) is a bunch of fringe junk. None of these alternative medical uses are actually in use.  I mean, maybe in some parts of Marin County, but not in Western society as a whole, and I doubt anywhere else. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect as suggested above. I'd say drop a chunk of the content and merge the rest into semen. Didn't think I'd every type that sentence -- Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 14:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I am the compiler of the research in this article. Check the revision history of seminophagia, from where it was originally lifted.  Kevin has been engaging in an edit war with me on the semen page, with mediation on the talk page.  Merge and redirect would be fine by me.JGabbard (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The whole thing is still in the semen article, so keeping just causes confusion. No point in a redirect, as it is not a likely search term. About half of it seems verified, and the rest is synthesis, so the section should be cleaned up at semen. Yob  Mod  18:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Semen and Redirect. The content of this article was moved into a seperate article by a conservative who doesn't want to see such scientific findings in the article on Semen, and who now supports deleting this article. These scientific results should certainly be mentioned in Semen. Marcoscramer (talk) 22:08, 12 August 2009 (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.