- 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 Penis_enlargement. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 03:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Jelq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I cannot find a single reliable source discussing this technique. I can find a lot of forums, youtube videos, and junk websites, but none that meet WP:RS. Without reliable info, we can't have an article on it. If we can verify it's existence in a reliable source, then we could keep it as a stub, but we can't actually include any details unless they meet WP:RS. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge - my own searching leads to a whole bunch of aggregation sites, SEO spam and forum posts. I'm not able to find any reliable source for it. This article just gets used as a repository for low value spam links. The previous AfD over seven years ago in 9/2005 closed with no consensus, but there was no real argument provided by proponents of keep. Article fails WP:GNGto stand on its own merit and even if there is some coverage, its similar enough that posting it as a new article instead of keeping it together as a sentence somewhere is a WP:CFORK. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]- as i have now informed this above user TWICE, the redirected article contains NO MENTION of the topic, or even the word itself. therefore there is no issue of wp:cfork. see below for my sugestion re: "suitable" sources. as for the previous "no consensus" discussion, i am include the full text below, for convenience, fordue & proper consideration. (redacted--see bottom Qwyrxian (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]
Comment For the record, it was already merged, but deleted from target article by the community previously. Contents should be added there, this page deleted and recreated with redirect so it can't get rolled back to linkfarm of disreputable sources again. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 14:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- keep the only reason user:qwryxian is nominatintg this article, or interested in the topic-category at all (see their contribs history), is as "payback" in a dispute we are having @ the spamfilter blacklist. the user has made sweeping edits to reduce the quality of the artilce, has removed ALL of the references, without properly examining ANY of them, & is applying a VERY personal interpretation of "suitability" of references. as for the merits of the subject; as quick online search will verfiy wp:notability. an examination of the previous deletion nomination (from >5 years ago) should offers sufficient evidence of support for the article's existence AND the previous "merge" & redirect of this item has "deteriorated" to the point where the subject is no longer covered in the redirected article. the word "jelq" does not in fact occur in the redirected article (except in the see also link i have inserted there). this makes the redirect USELESS for any end-user. if the nominating user really feels that ALL of the references are unsuitable, then i invite them to select among the 619,000 other items google offers, for "jelq". surely some of these will meet the user's very high standards? respectfully, as always, Lx 121 (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:GOOGLEHITS. Explanation for it is given in my deletion endorsement. Thank you -Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hello, & fair point:) BUT i'm not using the "hit count" for the question of "notability" (that can be settled by other means); i bring up the number to indicate the potential for other "more suitable" references to support the material in the article. Lx 121 (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, why did you highlight and italic the hit count as if it meant anything? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hi again, as i've already said TWICE above, the number is there to address the point about "suitability" of sources; when google returns >615,000 results for a topic, we really should be able to find a few source-references that we can all agree on the "suitability" of. Lx 121 (talk) 05:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- So, why did you highlight and italic the hit count as if it meant anything? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hello, & fair point:) BUT i'm not using the "hit count" for the question of "notability" (that can be settled by other means); i bring up the number to indicate the potential for other "more suitable" references to support the material in the article. Lx 121 (talk) 06:53, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:GOOGLEHITS. Explanation for it is given in my deletion endorsement. Thank you -Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Searching via Google News turned up a few reliable sources briefly discussing this term, which wouldn't be enough to support its own article; it'd be better as a section of penis enlargement. Here are the sources: 2005 Salon article, 2006 The Age article, 2007 LiveScience article (not a strong publisher, but the article is by a reputable author - Christopher Wanjek), 2007 medical journal article, and Mayo Clinic article. More sources: 2004 book published by Rodale, Inc. and 2011 book published by an imprint of Quarto Group. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Modified 07:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hello; i really don't have any problem with a merge, EXCEPT that the last time we tried this, it eventually resulted in the material disappearing completely from the article it was merged into. the word "jelq" was in fact no longer present in the "merged" article., resulting in a completely USELESS redirect. Lx 121 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing the history it looks like it was removed by another editor, probably because it lacked proper references just like the original article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- while i would debate the "qualifying standard" you are setting, i think we have the references problem solved now :) Lx 121 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. A good approach to solving that kind of problem is to discuss it on the talk page for the target article. But as far as I can tell from reading its revision history, the material was removed because it was not properly sourced. If you used the sources I listed above to write a short, verifiable, referenced description of the subject, I believe that other editors wouldn't entirely remove it. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewing the history it looks like it was removed by another editor, probably because it lacked proper references just like the original article. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 06:45, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hello; i really don't have any problem with a merge, EXCEPT that the last time we tried this, it eventually resulted in the material disappearing completely from the article it was merged into. the word "jelq" was in fact no longer present in the "merged" article., resulting in a completely USELESS redirect. Lx 121 (talk) 06:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- follow-up; i also wish to note for the record, that in "stripping" the article, before nominating it for deletion, user:qrwyxian also deliberately DE-CATEGORIZED IT (as well ass removing the appropriate stub category template). (just noticed that while adding the new & improved refs) i think that this can reasonably be considered as "bad form"; particularly coming from an admin. Lx 121 (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, the category removal was absolutely a mistake on my part; I must have selected too much when I removed the non-reliable sources. I'm going to take a look at the refs now and see if there's enough to support an article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hello, & fair enough :) to be clear, i'm fairly "agnostic" on the question of whether this should be a separate article, or a section/part of penis enlargement; what i have a problem with is having a useless redirect, that points the end-user to NOTHING (it also doesn't really help that the penis enlargement article isn't very good... ) Lx 121 (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've integrated 4 of the 5 references (one, in The Age, didn't have any useful info). Each reference contains only a small amount of discussion; it's kind of a toss up for me as to whether all together this is enough to meet WP:GNG. If not, there's definitely useful info here that can be retained in penis enlargement. I won't withdraw the nomination, though I definitely think we need to either Keep or Merge the info. Thank you to Dreamyshade for finding those references! Qwyrxian (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hello; with all due respect, you are conflating the question of finding "suitable" refereences (according to the standards that you have set), with the question of notability. there is AMPLE evidence to support notability for this topic, with its category, & you are on the fine edge of argueing a line of logic that to the effect that "i disqualified the references, therefore the subject is not notable". that creates a circular logic trap, that can be used to justify removing ANYTHING. in the category of "penis enlargement", this is important info. as i said, i'm not "bound" to either a separate artivle, or to inclusion in the main one for the subject, BUT the main article frankly isn't very good, & the last time this was merged, THE INFO WAS EVENTUALLY REMOVED. that is not an acceptable outcome of a "merge". Lx 121 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You may find it useful to read Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline (if you haven't already) - it explains that references and notability are related, and it also explains that Wikipedia has specific criteria for "reliable sources" that apply to all articles. I know it might seem like people are trying to dissect and destroy material specifically on this subject, but a lot of these edits and comments involve editors just trying to apply standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines. See Wikipedia:Verifiability - no matter how important a topic is, we need to cite the information to reliable sources such as books from reputable publishers and articles from reputable newspapers. As I said in my earlier comment, the right way to address problems with a merge's target article is to bring up the problems on the target article's talk page. I hope this helps. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hello; with all due respect, you are conflating the question of finding "suitable" refereences (according to the standards that you have set), with the question of notability. there is AMPLE evidence to support notability for this topic, with its category, & you are on the fine edge of argueing a line of logic that to the effect that "i disqualified the references, therefore the subject is not notable". that creates a circular logic trap, that can be used to justify removing ANYTHING. in the category of "penis enlargement", this is important info. as i said, i'm not "bound" to either a separate artivle, or to inclusion in the main one for the subject, BUT the main article frankly isn't very good, & the last time this was merged, THE INFO WAS EVENTUALLY REMOVED. that is not an acceptable outcome of a "merge". Lx 121 (talk) 05:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've integrated 4 of the 5 references (one, in The Age, didn't have any useful info). Each reference contains only a small amount of discussion; it's kind of a toss up for me as to whether all together this is enough to meet WP:GNG. If not, there's definitely useful info here that can be retained in penis enlargement. I won't withdraw the nomination, though I definitely think we need to either Keep or Merge the info. Thank you to Dreamyshade for finding those references! Qwyrxian (talk) 07:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hello, & fair enough :) to be clear, i'm fairly "agnostic" on the question of whether this should be a separate article, or a section/part of penis enlargement; what i have a problem with is having a useless redirect, that points the end-user to NOTHING (it also doesn't really help that the penis enlargement article isn't very good... ) Lx 121 (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, the category removal was absolutely a mistake on my part; I must have selected too much when I removed the non-reliable sources. I'm going to take a look at the refs now and see if there's enough to support an article. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I had to remove the old AfD from here, because leaving it on confuses bots trying to maintain the AfD pages. In any event, there's no reason to copy it here, because it's linked prominently in the upper right corner of this AfD. Not to mention the fact that it closed with no consensus over 6 years ago, so it's not very helpful for our discussion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- actually i do object to the removal of that content. i'm sorry but this creates the impression of trying to manipulate the content, to minimize an opponent's arguements.
- a) it is NOT appropriate for one "debater" to edit/remove material posted by another participant in the discussion. PARTICULARLY when the 2 persons are in disagreement.
- b)if the bots have a problem, then the bots are faulty. if something needs to be removed/chamged in the tagging to fix that, so be it. i have seen plenty of other instances where previous discussions is visible on the page, without any problems.
- c) MOST IMPORTANTLY; when an article is nominated for deletion more than once, it is only reasonable & proper that the arguements presented previous be considered. it is MUCH less easy to do so, when they are "hideen away".
- i think it is particularly important in this case, in that i find the "no consensus" close to be "questionable"; 7 people commented to keep, 3 people commented to delete, one user was neutral. how that becomes a "no consensus" close is beyond my understanding of the subtle ways of wiki-admins... :p
- in short, i'm restoring the text that was removed from my comment. if the formatting of it needs to be modified to prevent bot problems, so be it.
- Comment. Unfortunately I find that the inclusion of the old deletion discussion adds visual confusion when trying to read and understand this deletion discussion. If you want to refer to it or point it out, it's easy to do that by linking to it or quoting excerpts from it. I'd encourage you to look at similar deletion discussions and note that embedding an old deletion discussion is not normal practice. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge - Per Dreamyshade; the sources in the article, although somewhat reliable, do not illustrate the topic in enough detail to justify an article. I'll also note that the constant bludgeoning and shouting by Lx 121, who's making this discussion a battleground, is not helping their 'argument' for keep by doing the latter. Perhaps toning things down and communicating civilly will go a long way. -- MST☆R (Happy New Year!) 09:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FOR THE RECORD
i wish to note that the user:cantaloupe2 has AGAIN removed comments of mine from this discussion, FOR (at least) THE THIRD TIME.
this is unacceptable behaviour by any user in an open discussion, & particularly so, by an admin.
Lx 121 (talk) 07:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- as for the claimed "bot problem" i have stripped out any possible conflicting formatting instruction; therefore the point is now moot.
- & just to be completely clear, the above user HAS NOT limited their actions to removing the copy of the previous deletion discussion from this page, they have also (repeatedly) removed MY self-authored comments as well. Lx 121 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, Lx 121, but that material simply cannot be here. It's linked at the top of this AfD. This is how all 2nd and 3rd (and 6th, and 15th) deletion discussions are done. You can't have things your way just because you like them that way. As Dreamyshade said above, it's very confusing. The admin who closes this discussion should not have to try to figure out what's an old comment and what's a new one, and only the new ones are allowed (per policy) to weigh on the current discussion. Again, this is nothing against you, but this is how all 2nd+ AfDs are done. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- & just to be completely clear, the above user HAS NOT limited their actions to removing the copy of the previous deletion discussion from this page, they have also (repeatedly) removed MY self-authored comments as well. Lx 121 (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/redirect to Penis enlargement (possibly with deletion of the history as suggested by Cantaloupe2). There is enough legitimate sourcing (namely the Salon and Mayo Clinic links) for a section in that article, but not enough for a standalone article. Lx121, you are not helping your cause by SHOUTING. --MelanieN (talk) 03:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- where exactly do you find "a suggestion to delete the article history"? i cannot find ANY place in this discussion, where that came up o__0 Lx 121 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- See Cantaloupe2's comment at 14:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC): "Contents should be added there, this page deleted and recreated with redirect so it can't get rolled back to linkfarm of disreputable sources again." Personally, I think deleting the article (to delete its history) isn't necessary; preserving the history for a merged article helps preserve attribution information for the merged text. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- thank-you, i stand corrected :) & i agree with you that deleting the history & "salting the ground" would be overkill in this case. aside from complicating the licensing-attribution requirements; except when an article is being deleted (& the consensus here seems to be heading to a merge), such actions are meant to be used only in extreme cases. it is not desirable to obliterate page histories unnecessarily; that damages the "transparency" of the process @ wiki.
- See Cantaloupe2's comment at 14:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC): "Contents should be added there, this page deleted and recreated with redirect so it can't get rolled back to linkfarm of disreputable sources again." Personally, I think deleting the article (to delete its history) isn't necessary; preserving the history for a merged article helps preserve attribution information for the merged text. Dreamyshade (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- where exactly do you find "a suggestion to delete the article history"? i cannot find ANY place in this discussion, where that came up o__0 Lx 121 (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "linkfarm of disreputable sources" -- as regards this part of the auote, i think that description is "egregiously hyperbolic & demonstrably untrue", here is a list of the "highly disreputable" sources that cantaloupe2 was objecting to:
- http://www.thundersplace.org
- http://www.goodlookingloser.com/exercises-to-increase-penis/jelqing/
- http://www.jelqwiki.com/
- http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100819134807AACGZ7r
- http://www.pegym.com/penis-exercises/how-does-jelqing-work-jelq-techniques-jelquing
- http://www.menshealth.co.uk/community/forums/thread/444731
- http ://forum.body building.com/showthread.php?t=259757&page=1
- http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xsit7q_how-to-jelq-jelqing-exercise-jelqing-video-instructions_lifestyle#.UOfQOnhSESg
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hfKb11WWuI
- now, user:cantaloupe2 & i may have different opinions about the suitability of particular sources, for particular topics; we may even disagree (strongly) about interpretations of the rules & policies for same; or the wisdom of the current rules as written. HOWEVER, (given the topic of the article) if these sources qualify as a "linkfarm of disreputable sources", then what exactly IS the standard this user would demand, for an article about penis-enlargement? the encyclopedia britannica? the cia world factbook? the oxford english dictionary?
- for the particular subject under consideration, some of these sources are in fact, BETTER, more informative, more comprehensive, & contain more "expert" information, than the sources that we ended up going with.
- or does the user object to the current sources as well?
- See what I said above - Wikipedia has specific criteria for "reliable sources" that apply to all articles, and it has even higher standards for medical information (WP:MEDRS). The article's current sources are a well-known online magazine with a good reputation, a medical journal, a respected medical organization, and a journalist specializing in health topics - these all qualify as "reliable sources". Even if a forum post or self-published website has information that an editor considers valid, that's not enough - instead, we need to use information other people have verified as valid (via the editorial processes at newspapers, peer review in journals, etc). See WP:SPS and WP:USERG. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with cantaloupe; all the sources you have listed here,
with the possible exception of Men's Health(not Men's Health either, it's just a discussion forum), are unreliable sources. Wikipedia specifically rejects Youtube as a source (anyone can say anything there) and the same is true of yahoo and the blogs and forums and other sources you list here. And yes, the standards for an article about penis enlargement are exactly the same as for any other article here: solid, reliable, reputable, fact-checked independent sources. I mentioned above two sources that I think might qualify. Your "linkfarm" is completely unacceptable as sourcing for an international encyclopedia such as Wikipedia. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I concur with cantaloupe; all the sources you have listed here,
- See what I said above - Wikipedia has specific criteria for "reliable sources" that apply to all articles, and it has even higher standards for medical information (WP:MEDRS). The article's current sources are a well-known online magazine with a good reputation, a medical journal, a respected medical organization, and a journalist specializing in health topics - these all qualify as "reliable sources". Even if a forum post or self-published website has information that an editor considers valid, that's not enough - instead, we need to use information other people have verified as valid (via the editorial processes at newspapers, peer review in journals, etc). See WP:SPS and WP:USERG. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge -as per nom. There seems to be nothing of substance underpinning the article. David_FLXD (Talk) 04:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "There seems to be nothing of substance underpinning the article" -- i am going to restrain myself from making the obvious jokes this line offers. BUT i would like to understand what you mean mean/how it is that you come to this conclusion? what exactly WOULD something of substance underpinning an article be? o__0 (& how does this one fail to meet that requirement) Lx 121 (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the restraint! My apologies, I am guilty of not being careful enough (in itself not acceptable when contributing to AfD debates, I know). The sources are certainly good enough (even if some source article titles look like headings from a men's magazine). I still don't think much of the content, as it stands at present. There is something that might be a technique but probably doesn't really work... What I am trying to get at is that the article seems to be discussing something whose existence, or effectiveness, is doubtful. Ok, I am changing my vote to "Merge", since my view is that while there is not enough for a stand-alone article the present content is adequately substantiated. Qwyrxian and Cornelius383, thanks for the heads-up on my talk page. David_FLXD (Talk) 14:33, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- "There seems to be nothing of substance underpinning the article" -- i am going to restrain myself from making the obvious jokes this line offers. BUT i would like to understand what you mean mean/how it is that you come to this conclusion? what exactly WOULD something of substance underpinning an article be? o__0 (& how does this one fail to meet that requirement) Lx 121 (talk) 10:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It's important to cover dubious/ineffective things as well as effective things as long as the information is balanced/neutral/verifiable. Wikipedia includes lots of useful encyclopedic information on scams, patent medicines, and hoaxes - jenkem is an example. Dreamyshade (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.