Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Napoleon's penis


 * 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. Star  Mississippi  17:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Napoleon's penis

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This article appears to only regurgitate (a) rumor(s), without going in on why it is relevant (WP:RELEVANCE) or why it might be true or false.

It also appears to have an uncritical or biased view: The sources are exclusively newspapers who do the same thing: regurgitate one another. It has no scolarly sources giving this article the slightest flair of encyclopedic content. The true/falsehood of this rumor (which would be discussed in serious scolarly sources) is not mentioned, which is important if you want to talk about rumors.

It is astonishing, that on one hand, indigenous history is dismissed because it has not been written down and on the other hand, we accept the cheapest stories in otherwise sensible newspapers to make a relevant article.

--Feuerswut (talk) 16:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh and by the way:

The only scolarly article mentioned also questions the truth of this claim: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00224499209551669 page 579 of something shows clearly: the article questions if that ever happened.

"Ninety-two years later... " the summary amounts to "well it could have happened" not good enough.

This also leads me to believe that not all sources have been read and the quality of the article is questionable.

--Feuerswut (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 11.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 16:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Sexuality and gender, France, New Jersey,  and New York. –LaundryPizza03 ( d  c̄ ) 18:40, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NPOV is not a valid reason to delete, especially when there is also content in the article about the counter view. I'm not sure that there is an NPOV problem in the first place, as the event documentation is objective information about the object alleged to be the penis. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the first nomination at AfD, so this AfD page has been moved. Links and transclusions have been preserved. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 18:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The story is one that has been covered at length in reliable and verifiable sources over a period of decades. There are ample sources that discuss the story that are in the article and the notability standard is met. The standard described by the nominator that the article must be deleted because it "has no scolarly [sic] sources", simply does not exist. Alansohn (talk) 19:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It sounds like a daft article from the title but there is a legitimate topic here and any deficiencies the article may have do not amount to a case for deletion. We shall document Napoleon's boner part! --DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep seems well sourced. Topic is off the wall to be honest, but it meets wiki notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Clearly a notable topic. Whether true or not is irrelevant; what's important is how well the claims are sourced. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I agree with most of the Keep arguments above. Wes sideman (talk) 13:58, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Dubious -- There is no problem with verification, but this all goes back to a single 2-page 1992 article in Journal of Sex Research, picked up then by one newspaper and subsequently by several others and a TV station. It is s titillating subject rather than a notable one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It can easily be both. Wes sideman (talk) 11:04, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.