Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaginal flatulence (second nomination)


 * 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. W.marsh 16:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Vaginal flatulence

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Maybe a sourced encyclopaedic article can be written on this topic, but this is not it, and a ten minute Google search which left me wanting to wash my computer did not reveal anything credible on which to base it. The article has some sources which are dead external links, some which are about something else (fistula, a valid and well-covered topic), and at least one which is utterly risible (a link to the IMDB profile of a film which is asserted to include this). None of the supposed sources in this article actually supports the subject. None of the sources I could find is actually a valid, attributable source. Lots of forums, of course. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Another farcical article in which the references bear no relation whatsoever to the topic that is being discussed. Unreferenced articles get deleted. Moreschi Talk 13:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The humourous slang dictionary published by Viz is utterly risible, too, surely? Uncle G 14:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that Garrigues documents "Garrulity of the vulva, or flatus vaginalis", as do Crossen  and Thomas . Uncle G 14:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I removed the promotional link to one porn movie. What remains, though there are a couple of broken links, seems like pretty decently written, encyclopedic material to me.  There's no emergency of sourcing here, it will eventually improve.  Mango juice talk 15:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep And add more sources etc. But the article is encyclopaedic Lurker  15:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. Somewhat marginal, and perhaps there is a satisfactory merge target for something like this, perhaps regarding other vaginal health issues.  However there is nothing intrinsically wrong with this article, it seems sourced and encyclopedic, could use a little more work but no reason to delete.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A real phenomenon, so far sourced barely adequately. Needs continued serch for good sources, perhaps non-Google in medicval texts. Edison 18:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a real phenomenon. The article needs work but is not un-encyclopaedic in any particular way, especially if porn links have been removed. Mumun 無文 19:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The possible view than sexual topics are unlikely to have adequate sources has been defeated here by the existence of reliable medical articles. But I see no reason to remove working links to examples from pornography. (as distinct from dead links--these need checking even more frequently than other internet links.DGG 01:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Just because it is sexual and somewhat out of the norm for discussion doesn't make it any less real. I agree that sources are important, but it can be very difficult to find sources on these types of topics.  I also see no reason to remove valid links just because they are considered pornographic in nature if they are valid references, keep them.lbutler 46 19:34, 31 May 2007 UTC
 * Keep This does happen and a well rounded encyclopedia should include details on why and what can be done about it. Triddle 21:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep queefs are as much a biological occurance as sneezing is, i'm sure we've got an article on sneezing.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 04:11, 4 June 2007 (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.