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 speedy delete. G12 - urban dictionary predates, and there's no assertion of ownership - if it's from a deleted Wikipedia article it's still a copyright violation unless it can be properly attributed. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regional Indian Penis Size[edit]

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

Article is un-encyclopedic, unreferenced and failed WP:Notability.. Previously tagged under CSD under blatant hoax criteria. An admin declined adding it should gain consensus on its deletion. maucho eagle 02:16, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there are three references (primary sources) in the article which appear to deal with the subject. It doesn't look like it's necessarily a hoax. I would prefer to see secondary sources to establish notability. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 17:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete nonsense. Reference [3] does not have the title stated and does not address the topic stated in any way. The table is at best original research with an unsupported explanation based on race. No evidence that a sensible article could be written on this topic. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The title in question is referenced within the linked paper, this may have been a mistake on the editor's part. As it stands though, without secondary sources, this is WP:SYN... delete Catfish Jim & the soapdish 18:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. (Note: Aside from the question of notability and synthesis, this sounds like a classic case where the very process of making a careful measurement might affect the thing being measured). Edison (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that even given their firm grasp of the subject, researchers could expect the probability of prolonged observations affecting the results to become quite large? Anarchangel (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- secondary sources have now been included and there are many research papers on this topic therefore I don't think this topic is 'complete nonsense'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.255.97 (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm This does have sources now, but the question remains 'is the subject matter notable'? I can't help but to think yes, unfortunately, as the subject has been a topic for many, many years (in general, not in India in particular). My gut says "delete" but I can't find a rationale or criteria to delete. We can't delete because "the very process of making a careful measurement might affect the thing being measured" as that is making a judgement on the ability of the primary parties to do their jobs, bordering on wp:or/synth itself. Unless someone can kindly point to a valid rationale to delete (because I damn sure can't think of one), then I would have to say keep, out of fairness and objectivity. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could write hundreds of articles on "regional country penis size" or "regional country nose size" come to that. There is no evidence for a viable article relating to this particular country. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 06:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than being synthesis, (and the talk page seems to say that this is why the article exists, if I'm reading it correctly), I have concerns with copyright - the same material exists in the Urban Dictionary, [1] only is dated January 2011 (compared to April 2011 for this one). The Urban Dictionary doesn't claim copyright over the contents, but copyright does remain with the uploader, and it isn't clear that the uploader here is the same as the uploader at the Urban Dictionary. - Bilby (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a clear case of copyvio, wouldn't that be a speedy delete criteria? Dennis Brown (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, yes. But I'm not sure how clear a case it is, as normally copyvio comes form somewhere better than the urban dictionary. :) - Bilby (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio is copyvio, no person or site is "less worthy" of protection, and in the US, copyright is assumed (legally) unless explicitly stated otherwise. If it is dated prior to creation and doesn't have a waiver on file, AND the site doesn't have a copyright notice that would allow sharing, it is a copyvio, be it NYTimes or Urban Dictionary or your mother's blog. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of this. :) My apologies, as I worded it badly - the issue is that I'm not sure how unambiguous it is, as the urban dictionary doesn't claim copyright on content, but allows copyright to remain with the original author. Thus there's a possibility that it isn't unambiguous per G12, but it is enough for me to choose to delete as it stands, and the main point is that there is no clear indicator that the original uploader to the urban dictionary is also the uploader here. At any rate, I've nominated for CSD on those grounds, and I'll see what the admin who checks it thinks. - Bilby (talk) 00:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined speedy-deletion as a copyright violation. Urban Dictionary is notoriously inaccurate and the datestamp on their page is as suspect as the rest of their content. I believe the Urban Dictionary entry to be a theft of an old Wikipedia page which has since been deleted. I am not retagging as G4, however, because I have not yet found that prior page. (It could, for example, have been removed under PROD which would not be eligible for G4.) Rossami (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then I'm forced back to keep, due to the nom being "Article is un-encyclopedic, unreferenced and failed WP:Notability", the first two of of which being non-reasons for AFD, and the third being mistaken, based on info above. Odd, but that is what we have. Any other shortcomings (OR/SYNTH) are issues for the talk page, not AFD. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, delete as prohibited original synthesis regardless of the deletion method used in the probable earlier version since the sources which are cited do not in fact talk about regional differences. Once the prohibited synthesis is removed, there would be nothing left of the page. Rossami (talk) 01:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Taking data from different studies, which may well use different methodologies, and then using them as a basis of comparison is pretty well the definition of original research by synthesis. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, according to the article, average Indian one seems to be shorter than average of Caucasian male. But is a morbid topic itself, as well as speculations on it. Delete. I'd better to advice to author(s), if, of course, he(they) will accept any advice of mine, to write another article, name it Speculations on the theme of dick length. – George Serdechny 20:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete WP:OR. the biggest problem with the article is that the study about each region was conducted by a different group thus making comparison harder. As the title seems to imply that the theme of the article is comparison, the article, as it stands, is purely OR as wikipedians are the ones doing the job. However, OR issues might disappear if it is renamed to Indian penis size and the information is presented objectively. WP:Notability may become an issue then. --CarTick (talk) 22:53, 19 April 2011 (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.