Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rasputin's 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. No consensus to merge it to the main article, but that can be discussed further on the article talk page. Sandstein 05:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rasputin's penis

Non-notable penis. Completing nom began by IP user 69.253.207.9. Mjroots (talk) 18:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Condense and merge into main Rasputin aarticle.Historicist (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The TOPIC of Rasputin's penis is notable, there are even sufficient references in the article. Should never have been AfD'd. Michele Obama's arms are notable, too, but they were denied an article anyway. 8-(Drawn Some (talk) 18:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete John Bobbit's penis is more notable than Rasputin's and that doesn't have its own article. Mjroots (talk)

You nominated this, so you don't have to vote. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ, it was nom'd by the IP, but the correct procedure wasn't followed. I merely enabled the nom to appear here. Mjroots (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, hadn't noticed that, sorry. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Plenty of sources to establish notability and historical significance. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or keep but don't delete. I've seen this covered on television and in serious newspapers. Hairhorn (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am the nominating IP address but Wikipedia does not allow IP addresses to nominate articles for deletion. As I stated in the talk thread, plenty of famous penises like John Wayne Bobbit and Ron Jeremy do not have their own pages, so why should Rasputin? 69.253.207.9 (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That there isn't an article on John Wayne Bobbit's penis isn't a reason to delete this one, it's a call to write one about John Wayne Bobbit's penis. Really, his was sewn back on so it doesn't exist independently of his body whereas Rasputin's penis was supposedly separated. See WP:OSE for what I'm talking about. Drawn Some (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Wayne Bobbit is just an example. Are there ANY Wikipedia pages devoted to a specific person's penis? If not, the argument needs to be made that Rasputin's penis is so noteable that it's essentially the most famous penis in the history of mankind, which I do not think to be the case. In any case, what's the problem with merging this information into the main Rasputin article? This article isn't even that long in the first place. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, "Rasputin's penis" only returns 375 hits on Google, many of which are copies of this article. That doesn't strike me as notable enough to deserve its own article separate from the main Rasputin page. 69.253.207.9 (talk) 19:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but (rasputin + penis) returns 60,000 hits. You're being too restrictive with your quotes. And even your restrictive search turns up over 2,000 hits by my count. Rasputin's penis is one of the most notable in history except for bits of Jesus Christ's foreskin, see Holy prepuce. Drawn Some (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the "about 2,000" and "about 60,000" references are way off. If you look more carefully, you'll see 375 hits on "Rasputin's penis" and 811 of Rasputin penis without quotes. If you search on Pamela Anderson penis, it says "about 1,300,000 hits," so I suppose by your logic Pamela Anderson's penis needs its own article because it's 20+ times as notable as Rasputin's.69.253.207.9 (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're using another search engine. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22rasputin's%20penis http://www.google.com/search?q=rasputin%20penis Can you name a more famous penis? Drawn Some (talk) 20:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you new to using Google? Those "about X hits" listings are often wildly inaccurate. This reveals it's only 375 hits: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22rasputin%27s+penis&hl=en&safe=off&start=370&sa=N And as I said, John Wayne Bobbit and Ron Jeremy's penises are far more famous than Rasputin's. Per Google, how else do you explain why Pamela Anderson penis has "about 1,300,000 results" listed? 69.253.207.9 (talk) 20:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) You need to close your quotes, perhaps the embedded apostrophe throws the search off. With Google SafeSearch off, adding a closing quotation mark to your '375' search above, a search for

"rasputin's penis"

returns 2,130 hits. --CliffC (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you need to read what I wrote. Even though it displays "about 2,130 hits," there are not actually 2130 hits. There are only 375 of them. Well, actually there are now 7 new hits since I last searched, possibly because of this AfD, and it is now 382 hits. See: http://www.google.com/#q=%22rasputin%27s+penis%22&hl=en&safe=off&start=380&sa=N&fp=DkheYKZULkw 69.253.207.9 (talk) 21:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you know G-hits have nothing to do with how notable Rasputin's penis is, right? You should do a Google news search and a Google book search and report back shamefacedly on all the in-depth coverage in reliable sources. But of course you didn't do that, you're too busy looking for Angela Anderson's penis.Drawn Some (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of this "in-depth coverage" for an article which consists of exactly 15 sentences. Why can't 15 sentences be added to the main Rasputin article? 69.253.207.9 (talk) 21:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge This is a small article. The content listed here could easily fit into the main Rasputin article. Joe (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rasputin's article per above. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I vote YES on keeping this article. The user who proposed it for deletion did so because he does not like User:CliffC, who has done great work at keeping this article accurate. 68.45.109.215 (talk) 20:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but WHY do you think it should be kept? Drawn Some (talk) 21:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, history of the weird supported by reliable sources, the rest is clean-up via regular editing. -- Banjeboi 21:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I really think this information belongs in the article on Rasputin. The penis' notability is largely inherited from him, and most of the claims to its notability (size, shape, what he did with it) date from when it was still attached to the rest of him and to a functioning circulation. Deleting this article outright is not an option, and references to John Wayne Bobbit etc are just WP:OTHERPENISESEXIST arguments. pablo_hablo. 22:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even though this is an unusual article, but we don't want this information in his main article. Triplestop (talk) 01:15, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually we probably do want some mention with due weight but perhaps not the detail that this article would and could go into. -- Banjeboi 03:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject organ is notable in its own right and is mentioned and/or described in histories of the Russian Revolution and of the Romanovs. In addition, the style and content of the article make it a bad fit for a merge into the scholarly Grigori Rasputin. --CliffC (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing verifiability. "Some claim" that he was castrated, "some claim" that someone chopped his bone apart. "No definitive evidence" regarding either, per the article. This is not "Speculateopedia." Lacks reliable sources, so fails notability. Several of the refs are crappy and unreliable. Edison (talk) 03:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - most of the missing or crappy refs can be improved, there are plenty of better ones out there. --CliffC (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rasputin's penis is so noteable in Russian history that it's essentially the most famous penis in the history of modern world, and it's an icon like Lenin's Mummy. --200.49.211.8 (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This IP has been blocked as an open proxy.[1] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sources, enough content to warrant separate article. Would support a brief mention in the main Rasputin article, if not just a see also link. Also, I've seen weirder topics at Wikipedia:Unusual articles. -- œ ^™ 04:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't "I've seen weirder topics" fall under WP:OSE 69.253.207.9 (talk) 14:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah well, I'm just saying... -- œ ^™ 16:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the topic warrants its own article because people who want to know about Rasputin may not necessarily want know about his penis, making it worthy of a separate page.<sarcasm> His penis seems to be very very notable, I mean everyone knows about Rasputin's penis right? Perhaps it was the penis that made Rasputing notable? </sarcasm> «l| ?romethean ™|l» (talk) 04:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re-direct and merge with article on Rasputin. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Literally every statement in this article, despite having a source, is a matter of conjecture. "Some claim," "some believe," etc. That a rumor is sourced does not make it anything other than a rumor. If this article involved a current topic, it would surely be promptly deleted as lacking verifiability. That these rumors are historic in nature should not change anything--they are still rumors. Mikerichi (talk) 10:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rumours and hoaxes can still be verifiable. See Hoaxes vs. articles about hoaxes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge To the article on Rasputin. The subject doesn't warrant its own article. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, sufficient independent notability to exist as a separate sub-article. I've also added another reliable source.[2] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly meets the notability guideline for penises. Although most sources are about Rasputin himself, there are at least these two that write specifically about the penis. Also, add mention to the main Rasputin article. Jafeluv (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna know why we have a notability guideline for penises, and where exactly it is so I can read it. --BlueSquadronRaven 13:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Notability seems to be established but the only argument against including it in the main Rasputin article seems to be that people reading the Rasputin article might not want to read about his penis. But Wikipedia is uncensored and people can simply skip that section. 173.124.236.151 (talk) 23:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 173.124.236.151 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete rumours and nonsense can be notable. This one is not. Very borderline sourcing. His penis in life might or might not have been a noteworthy characteristic, but I can't see that the dead organ is. DGG (talk) 02:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article on this notoriously wayward anatomical part; if only Gogol had known about this before he wrote The Nose. Should enough people suggest "keep", it may be necessary to cut this off and preserve it soon. Antandrus (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Someone asked me to come here and place my vote, for great justice and, um, epic lulz.--69.114.165.104 (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is this a valid !vote? Mjroots (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a valid !joke and probably refers to the template at the top. I may be wrong though. pablo_hablo. 21:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 69.114.165.104 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Merge or delete. In the context of Rasputin, parts of his body may be notable. On their own, however, I just don't see it. Wikipedia may not be censored, but this just doesn't seem to be notable enough on its own. The only good argument for this article being separate is breaking off content that's not particularly wholesome from the main article...which I do feel would have more merit if the content were exceedingly objectionable, but as it isn't too over-the-top either merging or dumping makes sense.Tyrenon (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to main article on Rasputin. Sure, the topic meets WP:N so we could have a stand alone article on this subject, but that doesn't me we should. All of the information in this article would be better covered in the main Rasputin article. There's no need to highlight his penis in a standalone article.Yilloslime ^T_C 00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete. Simply doesn't seem notable enough to warrant its own article. --92.18.187.80 (talk) 23:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 92.18.187.80 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Seems relatively notable and a subject of some writings. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge. Unfortunately, I actually came to this article after searching "Rasputin's penis" and not via AfD. Long story. --AniMate^draw 09:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article is about "alleged" remains. They're not even as averifiably his as some genuine holy relics. --BlueSquadronRaven 13:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and not Merge because sensible people (children) reading the Rasputin article might not want to read about his ~~awe~~some penis.--211.54.10.162 (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a well written, well sourced article about a very notable penis. --Zaiger_talkplx 04:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:DICK. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having read the article, I now say keep. It has references, and is clearly a notable subject. Dream Focus 10:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'll try and get some more on this, but this is notable, and it can be improved. Deletion is not the answer here, in my opinion. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of the "keep" votes here are obvious jokes because the subject is a penis, or prudes who think the penis content should be removed from the main Wikipedia Rasputin page because children might read it. Wikipedia is uncensored! If you want to complain about prudish content why not mention that the anus page has a hairy asshole on it. 68.244.104.35 (talk) 04:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Sorry, I don't want to hear how do you explain that it's ok to show some anus pics to the minors but not to keep this article as a spin-off. --211.54.10.162 (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think the above user was making a joke about one of the comments on User:CliffC's talk page, one of the authors of this article, who has some comment about the Mona Lisa and a hairy asshole on the Anus page. In any case, see WP:NOTCENSORED 174.152.49.81 (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article is small enough it can be easily included with the Rasputin article. 174.152.49.81 (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2009 (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.