Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of animals with hymens

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 hymen. MBisanz ^talk 03:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

list of animals with hymens[edit]

This article is not actually an article, it is a mere short list lacking reputable scientific references. The linked articles never mention these animals hymens. This article is without context other than a gossip column and a web blog. Tallard (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete...just because. Boston (talk) 08:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The purpose of The Straight Dope is to dispell myths and popular misconceptions. Calling it a gossip column is an inaccurate description. The author uses reliable paper sources, interviews with experts and on occasion an scientific experiment (in the case of the Mpemba effect). There's nothing unreliable about it. -- Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be more wikipedic, mpemba has plenty of scientific evidence, that's why the Sdope my quote it, but the SDope may certainly not be the source for the mpemba effect--Tallard (talk) 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this list is not about myths, it's pretense is to give a anatomical listing that in 9 years of teaching university level anatomy I have yet to see in a single textbook.--Tallard (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the publication aims to dispell myths doesn't mean it's not suitable to be used as a citation for non-myths. To dispell myths you need to propagate the truth too. (To dispell the idea that cold water freezes faster, you need to explain the Mpemba effect. A similar thing can apply to anatomy) - Mgm|^(talk) 10:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tallard, are you asserting that the hymen itself is a myth -- that there is no such anatomical feature in either human or non-human mammals? If this thesis is true, then the list certainly should be removed. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although wikipedia's hymen definition makes an effort, to a certain degree, to reflect the modern idea of a "mucous membrane fold" near the opening. The real world non-scientific people understanding of hymen is "virginal membrane covering opening" associated with the "popping", a religious concept. The reason secular anatomists do not discuss hymens is this: mucous folds are not only present at the opening but throughout the vagina, nothing distinguishes the opening from the entirety, it's not a PVC pipe with a lid! but a lumpy foldy unshapely passageway, so if nothing distinguishes the opening from the rest of the passageway, then why give it a separate name, it makes no anatomical sense and is why some people prefer to not use the word hymen in anatomical discussions, because it exists in no other sense than the religious virginal one. However it is true that in rare cases, the vagina is incompletely opened, a medical/anatomical anomaly (see phimosis for similar male phenom) which when called hymen reflects the definition lay people think is the normal anatomical situation. So I will not fight in this debate about the existence or not of a hymen for humans because it is an integral part of religious people's view of the world, however the concept of hymen in animals when virginity is not an issue is indeed completely irrelevant, and is not found in modern textbooks. This list's unstated message is to say "women can be virginal, just as these animals in nature" but no professors teach this, in the same way as we used to say "women should only have one mate, because some birds and other animals are monogamous, which turned out to be no more than religious preconceptions. In a world where science is freeing itself of religious misconceptions, it is important that encyclopedias reflect this. Pardon my wordiness.:)--Tallard (talk) 14:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Supports the hymen article. Seems to satisfy WP:LIST (except a lead should be added). Lack of references is not a valid reason for deletion unless there is reason to believe the article can never be sourced, which is not the case here as any anatomy book for any species listed should be able to confirm or deny the claim that the species has a hymen. A lead should be added to the article to provide context as suggested by Tallard, but that's a reason to improve the article, not a rationale for deletion. Regarding Tallard's other arguments, list articles are as valid as any other wikipedia articles, and are validated by the same criteria; and there's no need for linked articles to mention these animals' hymens, any more than it's necessary for articles linked by List of animals displaying homosexual behavior to mention the homosexual behavior of those animals, because the subject may be notable in the parent article but not in the articles it links to. Baileypalblue (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- exactly, this list is 'opinion' not notably 'documented anatomical fact', therefore as you suggest, there is certainly reason to believe that list is non "sourceable"--Tallard (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to hymen. Not really sourced reliably enough so we can give this information as a definate list. But interesting in article. Steve Dufour (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, not sourced = delete. JBsupreme (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Can easily be written in a few sentences and added to the Hymens in other animals section of the hymen article. -Atmoz (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge to hymen. Failing that, delete.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs)

Merge with hymen. The list is short enough to be merged, and contains no context or anything else to suggest why this is notable enough to justify a breakout list. If this had dozens of items, I might consider differently, although with dozens of items it might have become even less notable. I have no objection to the sourcing; The Straight Dope is an internationally-syndicated column and it's a violation of WP:NPOV to disqualify it simply because of a perception of the type of column it is. Also, the writer of the column got the information from somewhere. 23skidoo (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The "web blog" (FWIW, Scarleteen is not a blog) reference mentioned by Tallard, while not a scientific paper, is an interview with the author of a book on the cultural, historical, and physiological aspects of virginity. It would be much preferred to reference the book itself, and even better, the original sources referenced by that book; I have placed a comment in this article's discussion page asking for help with this. The article gives no indication of how inclusive the list is, or what the criteria for inclusion are, but this calls for improvement, not deletion. The Hymen article already contains a couple of sentences on the subject, and the complete(?) list would not improve that section. At its most extreme, this list and its TOC entry took up over 30% of the vertical length of this [old revision of the Hymen article]. The main purpose of this article is to keep the entire list out of that one, so deletion is preferable to merging. [Vested Interested Disclaimer: I did not create this article, but I removed the long list from the Hymen article, and have tried to ride herd on the recurring vandalism to the list by reverting unsourced additions (mainly "slugs" and "beavers").] -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- the list is not about cultural assumptions of hymens in other species, it's pretense is scientific in nature, therefore only a modern anatomical textbook reference is of any value.--Tallard (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hanne Blank was the co-editor of Scarleteen, it's practically her own personal blog, and her statement on hymens is her own non-scientific prejudiced opinion. She is by no means a notable or acceptable source on anatomy.--Tallard (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hanne Blank is the author of (among other things) the book "Virgin: The Untouched History", which according to reviews is a "thoroughly researched" book, the first half of which deals with "bio-medical aspects". A reference to the book itself is a much preferred source than an interview with the author, and even better would be the primary sources cited in the book. There is no question that this article does need improvement. (I am geographically isolated, without access to anything that doesn't come down a wire, but I am seeking help from someone with access to a university library.) [Regarding the name-calling, nobody is claiming that Scarleteen is a scientific journal, but it is a sex education site targeted at teens and young adults. It is as disingenuous to refer to it as a blog as it is to refer to The Straight Dope as a gossip column. Neither are desirable primary sources, but both are guides to further research. And yes, Hanne Blank is a significant contributor to the site, with her name associated with approximately one percent of the sites 29,000 pages, but that hardly makes it her personal blog.] -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Snipits of Blank's book appear on google's book search, and page 23 includes the same list of animals mentioned in the interview. It is unclear if any reference is provided. The list is followed by the interesting comment "Compared to some of the others that exist, the human hymen is nothing ...". It is possible, depending on definitions and criteria for inclusion, that humans don't even belong on this list. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 21:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - ... and I have updated this article's reference list, replacing the Scarleteen interview with Blank (2007). (And yes, Tallard, this is not an anatomy text, but it is a step in the right direction, and if we don't find a reference to a primary source in the book I will contact the author.) -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete are we assuming virgin animals or do we take Shamu off the list if she does the nasty? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Argument Against Merging. The list exists in support of the Hymens in other animals section of the Hymen article. This section will have to be edited upon deletion of this list (for removal of the link), and at that time the editors can decide amongst themselves whether the article would be improved by inclusion of the complete(?) list. A "merge" will be viewed as an administrative request for inclusion. -- Kirk Hilliard (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is inadequate, in my opinion, to support the article. Equally, it's too weak for the material to be merged into Hymen. Tim Ross (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2009 (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.