Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phall-O-Meter

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. (non-admin closure) — Music1201 ^talk 02:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Phall-O-Meter[edit]

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

This article is about an admittedly satirical graphic, illustrating how to determine the gender of an infant based on penis size at birth. It was created by the Intersex Society of North America as a way of "challenging these arbitrary standards". The problem is that there is no evidence that this "Phall-O-Meter" is notable or even generally recognized. ~~None of the article's references mention it.~~ (see below) I recommend deletion, but if anyone thinks it is a valid search term, I would accept a redirect to Anne Fausto-Sterling#Sexing the Body, where it is indirectly mentioned. MelanieN (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this article, on the same day that I also created an article for Quigley scale. Similar pages exist for Prader scale and Orchidometer. All are scales that highlight medical norms in relation to male and female bodies. The satirical nature of the Phall-O-Meter lies in the manner of commenting on those norms, not the content of the scale. The device has been detailed (albeit incorrectly attributed to Anne Fausto-Sterling) on the Intersex page since 22 November 2013.[1]

Clicking the image reveals that it was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons on 11 October 2014 from the collection of the Wellcome Library, London. It comes from the Wellcome Images library of the history of medicine. Given that the Wellcome Library is situated on a different continent, and is a medical library, it shows that the image and the means of satirizing medical norms is one that has historical merit. It is a new article, so I have so far been able to add only a limited number of citations in support of inclusion of supporting text for an image in the Wikimedia Commons, but it's a start and I don't feel that deletion is warranted. Every one of the references cite it (or, in the case of the book by Kessler, is a source for the material in the meter) so I am not sure why it is suggested that the device is not mentioned. Two of the citations are paper books, however the others are available online.

The user Iridescent has deleted the talk page for the article as 'vandalism', so it may be that people are inadvertently taking offence to the subject matter or treating is as a joke. I don't think that's appropriate. Thanks. Trankuility (talk) 00:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, none of the cited references that are viewable online mention this graphic or whatever we should call it. It needs to meet WP:GNG with evidence showing that it is recognized by independent reliable sources. It isn't necessary for the confirmation to be viewable online but it helps if at least one or two citations can be seen to confirm its existence. This discussion will last a week, so you have plenty of time to come up with additional evidence for the existence/notability of this thing. You might try Google Scholar, I saw a few mentions there (although they may all be the same paper listed multiple times). --MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN, thanks for your reply. I have already added additional citations. However, the initial ISNA, Dreger and Feder citations already listed clearly mention the device. Trankuility (talk) 00:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I do now see a significant mention in Dreger (it's apparently a blog; something published would be better), and a passing mention on page 4 of the ISNA bulletin. The Feder mention must be in the main article; the link only shows the abstract. But you may well be able to find more supportive citations - in addition to the books which presumably have information but we can't see it. --MelanieN (talk) 00:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another citation. There are now relevant citations from sources in three languages and multiple decades. The article is better referenced than Quigley scale, Prader scale and Orchidometer. Trankuility (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article as it stands right now looks reasonably well-sourced. Also, anyone who's been reading social and clinical articles relating to intersex will already be familiar with the term. - Alison ^❤ 04:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Note: I wrote the similar Prader scale article)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If anything, wikipedia's coverage on physiological aspects of intersex are lacking. Hawaan12 (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:09, 26 April 2016 (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.