Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meatotomy (2nd nomination)

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 keep per WP:SNOW and WP:NOTCENSORED--John (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meatotomy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Wikipedia should not have pages about filthy and disgusting subjects like this. Jsar (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep and close – No policy based rationale presented for deletion per WP:DEL-REASON. This is a valid medical procedure that is sourced by three references in the article. This nomination is entirely subjective, based upon one person's opinion, rather than guidelines and policies. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per Northamerica1000. I'm getting deja vu all over again on this one.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 07:14, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball keep for the same reasons as above. And perhaps have a chat with the nominator about the idea that Wikipedia gathers all knowledge, not just Pokemon. Is it possible there are more socks operating here of the banned user who made the first nomination? Ubelowme _U ^Me 07:20, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have no idea what this procedure is about nor do I wish to know, but regardless, it is obvious due to the name and nature of the procedure that is ripe for abuse by immature people, therefore it should be kept under close watch so that graphically explicit images (which are not necessary) are not placed within the article. If somehow there is consensus to include such pictures (again, bad idea) there should be some kind of warning. I happened upon the article by chance when editing the AfD log (I thought the article was a joke at first), but if there had been pictures illustrating this procedure, it would have been a shocking and traumatizing experience. Wikipedia is here to educate and inform, not shock and traumatize, and we can achieve that goal without subjecting ourselves to such pictures. Laval (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2012 (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.