Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue whale penis

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. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blue whale penis[edit]

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

There is no reason for this to be covered separately from the article on the animal itself. It just looks like this is one of those pages that we make on April Fools Day to stick on the main page. I'm calling for a merge or a deletion. —Ryulong (琉竜) 03:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strangely enough, blue whale does not have a section on reproduction (I see only one sentence, pointing at this article). I support creating the section in blue whale on reproduction, and merging relevant content from here to the new section. Chris857 (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to blue whale, in a new "Reproduction" section~~ Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upon consideration, Keep as passing WP:N. A merge discussion can continue on a talk page if so desired. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The world's biggest dick, bigger than the ones we have on wiki which is saying something. We're NOTPAPER and this has more than enough coverage in its own right to constitute its own article. A summary of the penis and reproduction in the main article leading to this as a main article is fine. It would be unfeasible to merge given that this is largely about the proportions of the penis and not about whale reproduction and would bloat the main article which is already an FA. As the world's largest penis it certainly has claim to notability in its own right and is even the subject of scholarly papers and studies, most which can't be accessed on line. Tiger penis, Deer penis and Whale penis are notable. At worst it should be merged to Whale reproduction and made into a general article about reproduction.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:31, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the existence of other poorly written articles on animal penises mean this one should be retained?—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How are they poorly written?♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although the feature should also be addressed in the Blue whale article.--Ipigott (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Blue whale. Jarble (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

18,660 page views in the last month. A lot of people are looking for this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, (a) as it is notable, being the world's largest penis, and (b) address in the Blue whale article, per Ipigott. --Rosiestep (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly both notable as cited and of interest for its record dimensions. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Frivolous nomination. You might as well suggest that we shouldn't have an article on the human penis. Warden (talk) 21:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment reeks of failing to assume good faith.—Ryulong (琉竜) 22:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See also today's featured article. We don't delete such stuff; we feature it on the front page! A {{whale}} seems appropriate... Warden (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A critically acclaimed film named after a phallus and an article that is allegedly about marine biology do not really compare.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is bigger than some people at WP:ANI! ☠ Jaguar ☠ 23:08, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that this is a proper reason to retain an article, Jaguar.—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:47, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, my real reason would be that this article is notable enough for its recorded size, and it is generally also a popular article. ☠ Jaguar ☠ 00:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But why is it covered competely separately from the article on the blue whale proper? Why is there only a sentence saying "this is the biggest in the natural world"? How can it be so popular when it's got barely any internal links?—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The state of another article is not a relevant matter for any decision on this one. The blue whale article could be improved with a section on reproduction, in which that sentence, with the link to this article, would be entirely appropriate. A merge would wrongly affect the balance in the blue whale article. There are no valid grounds for either a deletion or a merge. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. The blue whale article should have a reproduction section with a paragraph on the penis or something and a link to the main article, but there are far too many sources which exist other than what we have to make it anything less than notable in its own right. And it gets nearly 20,000 hits in a month.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—and a snow keep at that! It passes all notability tests and I'm not entirely sure why this was nominated, given the number and range of sources already in the article. - SchroCat (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated because the status of the blue whale possessing the largest penis of any living animal is pub trivia at best, which is exactly why its in QI's Book of General Ignorance, one of the sources for the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, the sources don't reflect that and there are scholarly studies on whale reproduction and anatomy. Why don't you get on with something useful and contribute your knowledge of oceanography to articles instead of chasing a lost cause?♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm not a whale biologist and there are no such articles in use on this page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per User:Northamerica1000. No particular objection to a future merge, but it seems long enough and notable enough on its own.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that another dick joke?—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ability of people to find dick jokes everywhere is what separates the human from the animal. No, it was not intended as such.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:03, 3 December 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.