567:
topic is already covered -- because while the topic is notable, it's better covered elsewhere right now and we should be pointing readers interested in the subject there, not showing them a shoddy spin-off with no original content. Yes, if it were me I would have boldly redirected it rather than AfDed it, but this is where we are -- with an impoverished article about an important topic that we cover in much more depth elsewhere.
591:
Yeah, there's overlap, and this spinout does seem a bit early. I was thinking about those issues, but I've actually seen a documentary that focused entirely on this singular issue. I forget the name of it, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't the
British one described in one of those links I posted. There's
549:
I'm trying to work with you here, there's no need to be defensive or to harp on my "no position to research this" as if it invalidates my points -- the only thing that I needed to research was if "genital plastic surgery" was the proper term for the concept of combined male and female surgeries, and
404:
FGCS can be divided into two types. Vaginoplasty, in which the vagina, which may have been loosened due to childbirth or aging, is tightened. Labiaplasty, in which the size and shape of the labia is changed; this can be performed on either the labia majora and labia minora. Reduction of the labia
566:
places. My issue isn't about whether the term is used or whether the concept is notable, because it certainly is, ...and that's why we already cover it in a couple different places. In fact it's because it's notable that this should be redirected as providing no original content beyond where the
449:
You are right. I was not aware of those other articles when I made my first comment (although I should perhaps have realised there would be coverage of the subject somewhere). I would have no objection to a merger into any/all of those articles. My original comment was only really addressing the
592:
a specific debate over the ethics of cosmetic surgery on female genitalia, and there has been a lot written about why young women would want to get cosmetic surgery on something that can't normally be seen. I think that this current article could fairly easily be merged into
427:, maybe? But if we're talking about a category that includes two subjects which already have well developed articles, it seems this page would wind up being little more than a disambiguation. Maybe if it were renamed to include male genital plastic surgery (i.e.
464:
The fact that there are two main techniques or sub-divsions of the topic is quite irrelevant for the issue of deletion. Merger is not deletion and, in any case, it is not possible to merge to two different targets at the same time. In such cases,
469:
indicates that a summary-level page is appropriate. And
Rhododendrites says that he is no position to research this. Just how hard is it to click on one of the search links above where you will immediately see a stack of scholarly papers such
172:
275:
423:. In other words, the subject is covered in two places already. What isn't a duplication? The only way I can make sense of it is if the intention here is to break surgery away from the domain of
55:. Notability of the topic is not in question, but how to organize the content about it, and all comments after a certain point agree that this content is already covered in an existing article.
600:
expanded, it would possibly dominate that article. There's a lot of information about the topic. I wouldn't be against broadening to topic, but that's a debate for the article's talk page.
166:
327:
As
Stemonitis says, there are numerous sources for this and so the notability of the topic is quite evident. Also, merger is not deletion and so the nomination is doubly mistaken.
125:
98:
93:
559:
Nobody has confused merger for deletion, so why make that rhetorical point when you know that merge is a viable outcome of AfD? Regardless, what content is there to merge?
102:
255:
85:
132:
221:. This is by no means my field of expertise, but a very quick search produced a plethora of relevant sources, many of which satisfy all the requirements of
187:
225:. Review papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals! I can't honestly see how the nominator can claim a lack of notability. (Their
676:
because the other subsections appear also satisfying the title. The original article equating FGCS with only those two kinds looks slightly
154:
695:
89:
673:
669:
620:
593:
424:
420:
416:
299:
51:
17:
699:
658:
634:
609:
580:
542:
459:
440:
379:
336:
319:
287:
267:
246:
212:
67:
148:
81:
73:
677:
144:
345:
643:
493:
Female genital cosmetic surgery: Freakish or inevitable? Analysis from medical marketing, bioethics, and feminist theory
721:
554:
The fact that there are two main techniques or sub-divsions of the topic is quite irrelevant for the issue of deletion.
194:
40:
605:
375:
355:
538:
332:
691:
498:
The Women Are Doing It For
Themselves: The Rhetoric of Choice and Agency around Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery
428:
344:. This is a very popular topic, and there are documentary films about it. I found the following on Google:
160:
466:
717:
654:
601:
389:
371:
36:
203:
Non-notable with little to no third party sources. Also a merge to
Cosmetic surgery would be an idea.
556:
Of course it's relevant, if we already have articles on both of them as well as on a broader subject.
534:
455:
393:
328:
242:
687:
625:
573:
433:
312:
280:
260:
180:
530:
503:
Female genital cosmetic surgery: A critical review of current knowledge and contemporary debates
402:
Could you help me to understand this one? Here is the entirety of the article after the lead:
208:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
716:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
431:)? I'm not in a position to research how often that term is used, at the moment, though... —
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
230:
451:
407:-- It is a subject broken into two types, which we already have pretty good articles for:
397:
238:
234:
630:
58:
222:
412:
350:
303:
204:
119:
408:
307:
229:
was equally bewildering.) I also don't think there's any merit to a merger with
367:
646:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
363:
483:
In search of (better) sexual pleasure: female genital 'cosmetic' surgery
359:
450:
question of whether the subject is notable, which it plainly is. --
710:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
302:, which links to the two articles this subject looks to claim:
562:
The point is that this very content is already duplicated in
571:
not opposed to moving it to the draftspace, of course. —
523:
Female genital mutilation: whose problem, whose solution?
405:
minora is the most common form of female genital surgery.
276:
list of
Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
550:
you didn't even allow the argument to get to that point.
226:
115:
111:
107:
179:
513:
Female genital cosmetic and plastic surgery: a review
533:
proposing solutions to problems that may not exist.
652:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
193:
52:
Genital modification and mutilation#Female genitals
680:without sources making the definition out right.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
724:). No further edits should be made to this page.
227:previous attempt at speedy deletion via CSD A1
256:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions
8:
274:Note: This debate has been included in the
254:Note: This debate has been included in the
508:Female genital cosmetic surgery–the future
273:
253:
668:per Rhododendrites and perhaps refine to
553:
403:
233:, itself only a section of the wider
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
621:Genital modification and mutilation
594:Genital modification and mutilation
425:Genital modification and mutilation
417:Genital modification and mutilation
300:Genital modification and mutilation
24:
518:Female cosmetic genital surgery
488:Female genital cosmetic surgery
478:Female genital cosmetic surgery
82:Female genital cosmetic surgery
74:Female genital cosmetic surgery
674:§ Labiaplasty and vaginoplasty
1:
703:+ 13:49, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
421:Labiaplasty and vaginoplasty
419:, which includes a section
415:. We also have the article
741:
700:13:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
659:11:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
68:20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
635:00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
610:15:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
581:15:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
543:14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
460:13:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
441:13:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
380:03:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
337:22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
320:18:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
288:18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
268:18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
247:18:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
213:16:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
713:Please do not modify it.
529:Please do such research
32:Please do not modify it.
429:genital plastic surgery
704:
698:
678:original research
670:§ Female genitals
661:
290:
270:
66:
732:
715:
702:
686:
684:
657:
651:
649:
647:
633:
624:as suggested by
602:NinjaRobotPirate
578:
576:
438:
436:
401:
390:NinjaRobotPirate
372:NinjaRobotPirate
317:
315:
285:
283:
265:
263:
231:cosmetic surgery
198:
197:
183:
135:
123:
105:
65:
63:
56:
34:
740:
739:
735:
734:
733:
731:
730:
729:
728:
722:deletion review
711:
682:
662:
653:
642:
640:
629:
574:
572:
434:
432:
394:Andrew Davidson
387:
313:
311:
281:
279:
261:
259:
235:plastic surgery
140:
131:
96:
80:
77:
59:
57:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
738:
736:
727:
726:
706:
705:
650:
639:
638:
637:
626:rhododendrites
615:
614:
613:
612:
588:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
575:Rhododendrites
560:
557:
551:
527:
526:
525:
520:
515:
510:
505:
500:
495:
490:
485:
480:
472:
471:
462:
444:
443:
435:Rhododendrites
382:
339:
322:
314:Rhododendrites
292:
291:
282:Rhododendrites
271:
262:Rhododendrites
250:
249:
201:
200:
137:
76:
71:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
737:
725:
723:
719:
714:
708:
707:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
679:
675:
671:
667:
664:
663:
660:
656:
655:North America
648:
645:
636:
632:
627:
623:
622:
617:
616:
611:
607:
603:
599:
595:
590:
589:
582:
577:
570:
565:
561:
558:
555:
552:
548:
547:
546:
545:
544:
540:
536:
532:
528:
524:
521:
519:
516:
514:
511:
509:
506:
504:
501:
499:
496:
494:
491:
489:
486:
484:
481:
479:
476:
475:
474:
473:
468:
467:WP:CONCEPTDAB
463:
461:
457:
453:
448:
447:
446:
445:
442:
437:
430:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
399:
395:
391:
386:
383:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
357:
353:
352:
347:
343:
340:
338:
334:
330:
326:
323:
321:
316:
309:
305:
301:
297:
294:
293:
289:
284:
277:
272:
269:
264:
257:
252:
251:
248:
244:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
217:
216:
215:
214:
210:
206:
196:
192:
189:
186:
182:
178:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
146:
143:
142:Find sources:
138:
134:
130:
127:
121:
117:
113:
109:
104:
100:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
75:
72:
70:
69:
64:
62:
54:
53:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
712:
709:
681:
665:
641:
619:redirect to
618:
597:
596:, but if it
568:
563:
522:
517:
512:
507:
502:
497:
492:
487:
482:
477:
413:vaginoplasty
384:
364:this article
356:this article
351:The Guardian
349:
346:this article
341:
324:
304:vaginoplasty
295:
218:
202:
190:
184:
176:
169:
163:
157:
151:
141:
128:
60:
50:redirect to
49:
47:
31:
28:
409:labiaplasty
325:Speedy Keep
308:labiaplasty
167:free images
452:Stemonitis
398:Stemonitis
368:BBC Online
239:Stemonitis
61:Sandstein
718:talk page
631:BakerStMD
569:Certainly
535:Andrew D.
329:Andrew D.
37:talk page
720:or in a
666:Redirect
644:Relisted
385:Question
296:Redirect
126:View log
39:or in a
396:, and
205:Tinton5
173:WP refs
161:scholar
99:protect
94:history
683:野狼院ひさし
672:. Not
531:before
362:, and
360:CBC.ca
145:Google
103:delete
366:from
358:from
348:from
188:JSTOR
149:books
133:Stats
120:views
112:watch
108:links
16:<
606:talk
598:were
539:talk
456:talk
411:and
376:talk
342:Keep
333:talk
310:. —
306:and
278:. —
258:. —
243:talk
237:. --
223:WP:N
219:Keep
209:talk
181:FENS
155:news
116:logs
90:talk
86:edit
579:\\
564:two
470:as:
439:\\
318:\\
298:to
286:\\
266:\\
195:TWL
124:– (
628:.
608:)
541:)
458:)
392:,
378:)
370:.
354:,
335:)
245:)
211:)
175:)
118:|
114:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
696:c
694:/
692:t
690:/
688:u
604:(
537:(
454:(
400::
388:@
374:(
331:(
241:(
207:(
199:)
191:·
185:·
177:·
170:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
147:(
139:(
136:)
129:·
122:)
84:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.