Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pre-morning wood


 * 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   redirect to Nocturnal penile tumescence. (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 00:32, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Pre-morning wood

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Title is slang and no medical references in the article. Housewatcher Housewatcher 06:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cited medical references in the articles revision and slang time is medical research term updated to vocabulary in 2009 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpatrickpaul (talk • contribs) 2012-11-18 07:14:58
 * We have a stub article on nocturnal penile tumescence. It's written in coherent English and describes the subject straightforwardly and sensibly.  This article, in comparison, is utter tripe, with a slang title and slang content, that has the writing level of a child.  It doesn't even get the spelling of "fazed" right.  We have absolutely no need for this juvenile rubbish at an incorrect title when we've had a proper article for six years.  We've had a prophylactic redirect at the right slang name, morning wood, for seven.  This is just &hellip; well &hellip; useless unencyclopaedic junk.  Indeed, I half suspect, given the content and the reasons that children have for writing such stuff, that it is outright vandalism.  Delete.  Uncle G (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete under A10 or speedy redirect as alternative. As A10 requires, this article "does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject."  I'd say speedy redirect, but I'm not sure how many people would ever actually search for or link to "pre-morning wood" (as opposed to the much more common "morning wood"), so speedy deletion may be in order. — Francophonie&#38;Androphilie  (Je vous invite à me parler ) 22:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy redirect - I think the title could conceivably be a search term (while making no judgement about those inclined to perform such a search) and so a redirect to nocturnal penile tumescence might be of some (limited) value. But there is nothing in the article worth merging anywhere. I would suggest the title be semi-protected or protected to prevent it from being reverted to full article status (no pun intended) at some point in the future. Stalwart 111  04:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Redirect: Unsourced OR and content fork. I don't really buy the suggestion that this is a possible search term. It might be "conceivable", but it's exceedingly remote. Wouldn't object in the slightest if the article were simply deleted. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I see plenty of merit in Dominus' comment and don't have any objection to a straight delete either if there is agreement that a redirect would be worthless. Stalwart 111  13:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per CSD A10 as above. -- Scray (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2012 (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.