Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genital pain

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 List of causes of genital pain. czar 21:43, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Genital pain

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Correct use of redirect repeatedly overwritten to copy lists from other articles. User is doing this with multiple pages on this topic, simply duplicating existing info. JamesG5 (talk) 03:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am adding content to these pages. Can't you show a little patience? Seriously, look at the testicular pain article, that's what I aim to have for these new pages, and it will take me just a few minutes to get them to a point where they have enough content so that they aren't simply a copy of any existing article. Please be patient, thanks! :) Ethanbas (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect to List of the causes of genital pain (which should probably be renamed without "the", not that it's a big deal). On one hand, it's generally unnecessary and/or overzealous to nominate a non-vandalism non-blp article for deletion within a few minutes of its being created. On the other hand, in this case it's just a straight up copy/paste of the other article and thus rather explicitly not appropriate for articlespace (for WP:A10 or immediate redirect). Patience isn't really needed in such cases because it serves no purpose while it's there -- it's just duplicate material. That's what the draft namespace and user sandboxes exist for -- to give people time to work on otherwise problematic pages... until they're ready. So hopefully this is a temporary resolution (i.e. hopefully the article is indeed developed -- but developed into something that can stand on its own before it stands on its own). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of Penile pain for remaining? I've gone ahead and copied the 4 pages I created to user space. I think though that essentially, these articles (minus maybe strangulation, although I'm working on seeing if that should be an article), I think these articles should be articles on Wikipedia. A lot of different things could be put in them. Ethanbas (talk) 03:40, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Penile pain seems like a possibility if it's framed as something more along the lines of "types" rather than "causes" (i.e. "penile pain may refer to..."). No strong opinion, though. I haven't seen the various other articles, but since the real issue here is duplication of content, I don't see any reason to assume they couldn't be perfectly good articles once they have more original, sourced content. In other words, my !vote here shouldn't be interpreted as any sort of prejudice against the recreation of these pages later -- only that based on what was currently there, at the time I !voted, it was clear that it should be redirected. If they've been redirected, I think this (and any other such thread that may be open) can be speedily closed by the nominator or a third party. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page is not useful and contains repetitive information found elsewhere. Andrew. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:56, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is but one in name only, what with all the redirects.TH1980 (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~. There are two advantages to this article over List of the causes of genital pain. The trivial one is that it breaks the issues out by body-part, which the list page doesn't but should, to make it easier to find the intended page. The more important one is that it links to pages like testicular pain that give more detail than etiology, e.g. differential diagnosis. A list article can't cover that detail. The other pages (penile pain, vaginal pain) don't cover those details yet, but could be expanded to do so. It sounds like Ethanbas is working on an expansion along those lines and I think it makes sense to allow them time to try before deleting. Mortee (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing my vote to neutral. Long term I think an article on this topic that isn't just about causes will be valuable, along the lines Ethanbas has laid out, but no-one with the time and/or expertise to do so has come forward to make those changes to the page just now, so I'm equally torn between the arguments a) redirect to the useful, existing article and b) set up an article with the better, long-term structure so it receives attention and editing. I'll leave that to an admin to decide. Mortee (talk) 22:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (to List of the causes of genital pain). The article was not edited since January 28 (AfD nomination), so I doubt a functional version will appear within minutes. On the other hand, Ethanbas or any other user is welcome to work on it by copy-pasting the current revision in a draft, and replace the redirect once the new version is ready. (If the page is deleted, please provide the WP:REFUND.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep the page, giving it a prominent link to the 'list of causes of' page in place of the current duplicated content. That would encourage other editors to develop the page, and it makes better sense long term, since the causes of genital pain are one (obviously important) aspect of the topic, not the whole. Still, if it does go back to being a redirect and then change again later it's at no great cost. I'll contact Ethanbas separately to see if I can help with the drafts (not that I know anything about the topic, so I doubt I can do a whole heap). Mortee (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, I'm busy with other things, and I already told Mortee I'm unable to work on these pages (vaginal pain, penile pain, genital pain) for the near future. I do follow Mortee's line of thinking when he says, keep the page and encourage other users to develop it somehow, and keep the page because there is clearly material that could be added that isn't on the already existing penile injury article, I just don't have time to work on this stuff anymore. Ethanbas ^(talk) 22:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was not a case of "work on it or shut up". You have no duty to continue editing articles you "abandoned" midway - but equally, we have no duty to adopt those articles. I fail to see why a non-redirect article would be useful; I could be convinced, but unless it is imminently coming I do not see why an "article" that is a poor duplication of a natural redirect should be kept in mainspace. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:59, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is that, as a redirect, the article will probably never get worked on, while if it stays up as a stub, someone might work on it. Ethanbas ^(talk) 17:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. If I knew for certain that eventually (even after a long time) someone would turn that into an article with more value than a redirect, I would support keeping. The problem is, right now it is a poor duplicate of the list and if I had to write the article I would not know what to do. Per WP:RUBBISH, asserting that an article merely needs improvement to withstand a deletion nomination is not a persuasive argument to retain it. - such assertion must be proven. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:30, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I don't have a problem with redirecting the article at this point. Ethanbas ^(talk) 18:12, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect (to List of the causes of genital pain). This is one of multiple articles on the topic created in the "hope" that someone else would do something with them. Since Ethanbas is acknowledging he has no intention of working on it, it's simply clutter to leave it. If someone wants to develop a detailed article at some point they can. JamesG5 (talk) 01:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of the causes of genital pain. Once again, a WP:REDUNDANTFORK by this editor. There is no reason on earth for us to have two lists of why your genitals hurt, which is clearly all this is going to be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without prejudice. If someone can do something with it in the future, great. Otherwise it's just a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. De Guerre (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect List of the causes of genital pain is more useful than this one. PriceDL (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now. Ethanbas ^(talk) 19:46, 11 February 2017 (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.