Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vaginal flatulence

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 of the debate was keep. Looks like the article was rewritten. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vaginal_flatulence

This article borders on nonsense. It is woefully undersourced except for links to an urban dictionary and there is no ICD-9 listing for this condition. Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. Delete --Malber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy deletion on this "article" please. Grafikm_fr 20:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Golfcam 21:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep - I've done a fair amount of research on this topic since moving this page and cleaning it up many months ago. It's a real phenomenon, which is not a matter for debate at all. It is covered in a number of external sources, and is related to serious medical conditions (colovaginal fistula, for example, has related symptoms as described in the article). How, exactly is this not an encyclopedic article? Is it the cataloging of slang terms (something which many Wikipedia articles do; e.g. fuck) or is it the fact that pornography is referenced (again, this is an attempt to be complete, not to dwell on what might offend). How can we not cover this topic? How many external references are required for an article of this length? Why would an article be deleted for having less citation than that, rather than enhancing the citations? -Harmil 21:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • comment - A few more sources [1] German link. The problem is that this condition is not a treatable disease or syndrom, though it can be a symptom. For example, "Symptoms of genitourinary prolapse: [...] Coital difficulties–dyspareunia, loss of vaginal sensation, vaginal flatus" [2] -Harmil 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment The subject may be caused by legitimate conditions like colovaginal fistula or female genital prolapse, but it's included in a range of symptoms for these conditions. It only deserves mention in the articles on these conditions. Then there's the section on prevention which merits deletion because Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. This leaves the slang section which is just another way for someone to insert "pussy fart" and "queef" in the encyclopedia, and the pornography section which is merely one sentence. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 22:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Malber, I realize that pussy fart and queef might not be pleasant words for most polite conversation, but they're certainly terms that are widely used. Why should they not appear on Wikipedia? As for the first part of your comment: I'm not sure that it makes sense to discuss the same phenomenon in multiple articles without giving it an article of its own. You also claimed that the article was "woefully undersourced except for links to an urban dictionary" in the listing summary. Could you please retract that comment, since it is a rather serious misrepresentation of the article (which contains 4 inline citations and 3 external links including links to sites such as UHRAD, WebMD and Medical Tribune). If someone has better references, please feel free to add them, but I think that this article is about as well sourced as one could expect at this point. I agree that the prevention section could be re-worded to avoid an instructional tone, and rather survey techniques more objectively... which I have now done. -Harmil 18:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

• huh? Keep per Harmil Jcuk 21:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep huh? again --Mboverload 22:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. If the title of this article were "queef", then I would agree with the nom and vote for a redirect. Isopropyl 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment [3] claims the code in the ICD10 for Flatus vaginalis is N89.8. Don't know if it is reliable. Possibly move to Flatus vaginalis. Note that five foreign language wikipedias have articles on this too! Шизомби 00:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It's of medical significance, even if it's not of life-or-death seriousness. As long as the article is kept relatively free of slang and completely free of those rotten "pop culture references" I think it's okay. A list of movie and TV quotes would ruin this rather serious article. Brian G. Crawford 03:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - (personal attack removed by admin - comment on content, not editors) Luka Jačov 08:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I can see people looking this up in a serious matter. To disperse the medical knowledge into separate articles would just confuse things. Kelvinc 08:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• maybe keep* - put a little more medical info into it and a few more links to actual medical articles about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.150.194.34 (talk • contribs) 05:08, 20 April 2006.
• Keep - I came looking it up (after hearing the term "queef" briefly mentioned in school) not knowing this was even at all possible. I definately learned something out of this (especially from the More Serious Conditions section, which I feel was very informative), and feel it has some medical notability within Wikipedia. A lot of people have been editting it, so it seems, so I feel a lot of people look it up too, heh. Shadowolf 20:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -Queef and Vart (which would be slang) redirect here, eventually we need to settle on *some* acceptable non-slang term for this article, either Flatus vaginalis or Vaginal Flatulence. Ronabop 01:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand your comment. The article is titled vaginal flatulence, and makes a clear distinction between the technical and slang terms. What are you looking for the article "settle" on? -Harmil 17:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm looking for the article to "settle" on a non-slang phrasing for the topic. Ronabop 04:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - what Ronabop said 24.7.106.155 09:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge and redirect - likely that someone would come to us to learn about the term, uncertain whether it needs its own article. Johntex\^talk 19:42, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep Empirically, it happens. Maybe the title could be more clinical... Roodog2k 18:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Notable but needs more medical sources and focus as well as a general cleanup. The current links are dreadful to say the least and need to be changed for more informative and accurate ones.--Cini 19:27, 23 April 2006 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.