Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jelq

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 14:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jelq

• Delete. No valid references provided, seems to be something I would get in a email with the title 'fr33 va@gra!!1111 make l0v3 to he)r all nite longggo! Also, wikipedia = no orginal research, right? --ben dummett 21:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I might get an email with the subject "Ref!n@nc3 ur h0me" but that doesn't mean we don't need an article on mortgage. The article is not original research and references can be provided. If you'd like to help, check Thunder's Place (e.g. [1]). ^L_Wizard @ 00:03, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Then, kindly, provide these references. I hardly think a website entitled 'penis-enlargement-manual' is a valid or respectable citation source and reference. Until the quality and hence respectability and factual veridically of the article is improved, significantly, my vote will remain as thus. --ben dummett 09:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

You mean you just don't trust websites at all? Because as websites go, one entitled 'penis-enlargement-manual' seems like a good place to find information on penis enlargement. I don't suppose you trust the penis enlargement wiki at that site either, because wikis are completely unreliable and worthless, right? I've found that attacking an article for lack of references mainly happens when someone doesn't like the content. Xylanase has no references and never gets criticised because of it. ^L_Wizard @ 16:38, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate your vigour for this topic (lets not delve not much into psychoanalysis), however misguided it maybe, that doesn't change my initial argument, that we should strive for inclusive of more reputable sources, that have tested their hypothesis with the upmost respect for proper scientific method, etc etc. --ben dummett 05:20, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. My visit to wikipedia today was solely to find out what the hell "jelqing" is, and by god, there was actually an article about it! 68.13.248.151 04:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with last comment. Also, the information on the previously mentioned website seems even better than that of some highly ranked scientific paper. In the statistical analysis a large enough population for a trend was used. [Previous unsigned comment from User:80.58.35.236]. ^L_Wizard @ 04:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. No opinion. —Cryptic (talk) 15:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup. There are some 181,000 Google hits on Jelqing, so even if the subject may be objectionable, it is clearly notable. Groeck 17:53, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• strong keep based on number of google hits! There appear to be articles about the exercise in reputable publications, as well. — brighterorange (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - I was all ready to vote delete, but by damn, this appears to be a legit term for the practice.--Isotope23 18:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless references are provided. --Carnildo 23:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Carnildo --Vsion 02:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep whether or not you like the topic ··gracefool |☺ 07:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.