Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cunnilingus tongue

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 merge to Frenulum of tongue#Disorders. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 23:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunnilingus tongue

Cunnilingus_tongue|View log]] · Stats)

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

"Cunnilingus tongue" is neither a disorder recognized recognized in the medical literature nor a term of notable usage. None of the references provided mention a disorder caused by performing cunnilingus or other sexual acts, and several link to sources not even discussing oral lesions. This article obvious a joke and a hoax. 160.39.155.38 (talk) 22:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completed the nomination. ansh 666 22:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - actually, it's pretty well sourced; at least two of the sources I checked did refer specifically to a disorder of the tongue causing lesions related to friction experienced during oral intercourse. It could use a review by editors more familiar with WP:MEDRS but it's certainly not an "obvious hoax". Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All these sources are reliable as defined by MEDRS, apart from 2 or 3 which fall just outside of MEDDATE (not published within last 5 years). MEDDATE is not a strictly applied rule. A source can still be reliable it if was published in 2004. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 22:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 22:48, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete Sources only briefly mention the condition and is often mentioned as a condition with no name. A search of the condition brings no viable sources. The Wikipedia page on cunilingus seems to suggest this condition is not noteworthy nor an official condition. A merge could be appropriate. EllsworthSchmittendorf (talk) 23:20, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a modest amount of this material into Frenulum of tongue#Disorders. The way I'd probably do this is to give "ulcers" its own subsection and include this among the possible causes. If that section gets too big, then we can always expand it into a new article (e.g. Disorders of the lingual frenulum or Tongue ulcer). De Guerre (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Content already discussed at Oral ulcer. Also, this condition is not always ulcerative, can be fibrous hyperplasia. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've convinced me that concentrating on ulcers is probably not the right approach. So my next suggestion is a subsection on "trauma", and expand it to include many possible ways that the frenulum may be physically injured. De Guerre (talk) 03:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - In attempt to establish some sort of consensus here, I suggest that one key issue is WP:SIGCOV.
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it need not be the main topic of the source material.
The question that I would like to see answered is whether or not any of the sources, reliable though they may be, address the topic "directly and in detail". Most of the references that I could check mention this condition only in passing. De Guerre (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are textbooks, what do you expect? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To get its own article, I expect significant coverage. De Guerre (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as author -- the condition is both notable (more than 2 reliable sources), and this article is well sourced. Suggest nominator actually checks the sources in question before making such claims. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 01:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the nominator, but I did look at the references, and one or two of them don't check out. Reference 6, for example (Textbook of Oral Medicine, Oral Diagnosis and Oral Radiology) doesn't have a page 1245. De Guerre (talk) 06:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was probably a Google books preview of an ebook version which typically have many more pages than the paper version. All of the refs "check out", suspect you just have access problems or are looking at a different format of the source. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked it up again and the section on traumatic ulceration to the lingual frenum appears on 626 [1]. Must have been the original reference generated from an ebook preview is the only reason I can think for this. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I alerted WP:Med to this discussion. Someone might want to alert WP:Sex to it, though that project is significantly less active than WP:Med. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Frenulum of tongue#Disorders per De Guerre. The type of injury may exist, but this is not a formal name for it. Wikipedia should not be in the business of inventing titillating names for topics not independently notable enough to have been given a name of their own. bd2412 T 19:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Merge per De Guerre et al, I think it needs to be covered somewhere but I don't think it requires a separate article necessarily. Keilana (talk) 21:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've not even accessed the articles you are suggesting to merge to. There is already content covering this phenomenon on mouth ulcer, cunnilingus, tongue disease and frenulum of tongue, however the fact that it is mentioned in other articles is not justification to delete the article. It is a notable subject and worthy of a stand alone article per WP:N. Actually, every argument presented so far in this discussion is invalid, from the completely unfounded claims in the original nomination to these sheepish "merge" suggestions from those who have clearly not read the articles they talk of. The references meet MEDRS, notability is met. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does the phrase "cunnilingus tongue" exist as an actual medical diagnosis? bd2412 T 00:18, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The term doesn't appear in ICD-10 if that's any help. De Guerre (talk) 03:30, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor SNOMED, nor MeSH, for what it's worth. De Guerre (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does it appear as a phrase in the asserted "Textbook of Oral Medicine". The sentence there says: "Lesions on the lingual frenum are usually seen in individuals who practice cunnilingus (tongue projected into the vaginal area)". The words are adjacent, but as part of separate clauses, with the latter being a parenthetical. It does appear as a phrase in two texts that I can find, with the same primary authors, Crispian Scully, ‎Stephen Flint, Color Atlas of Oral Diseases (1989), p. 264, and in Crispian Scully, Stephen Flint, et al., Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases (2010), p. 221. However, two incidental uses are not enough to claim that this is the recognized name of the condition. bd2412 T 04:17, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Admittedly not all of the sources use the term cunnilingus tongue, but rather some refer to this condition descriptively. However, the current article title is the most succinct for an encyclopedia. Compare with "traumatic ulceration of the lingual frenum secondary to oral sexual activity" ... if you'll pardon the pun it just doesn't roll off the tongue. I should be able to supply more sources which use the exact term. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "secondary to oral sexual activity" is also secondary to the kind of injury. We have an article on the ankle sprain; we do not have individual articles on the "bicycling ankle sprain", "basketball ankle sprain", and "hiking ankle sprain". bd2412 T 14:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

comment it does seem Wikipedia:Notability--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:56, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per others. We shouldn't have an article with this name based on so little: it is not the job of Wikipedia to promulgate new terms. There does appear to be enough sourcing to say something, but that something can be in another article. Bondegezou (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge too novel a term, and too little coverage to merit a standalone article. Alexbrn (talk) 08:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as one of many ways to injure the frenulum, as is represented in reliable sources; a standalone article would be undue weight. — soupvector (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment Of all the ways one could injure the frenulum, this is the only one to receive obvious attention for a simple reason --- someone found the idea humorous. The idea that this is a legitimate medical condition deserving of its own page or more than a single sentence on another page that does not reference it by either of the names ascribed to the condition here is ridiculous. 160.39.155.163 (talk) 06:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is entirely invalid given the number of reliable sources on this topic. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as suggested by De Guerre, per WP:SNOW. I agree that the sources which specifically describe this as "cunnilingus tongue" do so descriptively and non-exclusively. It should be a redirect to a discussion about general traumatic injuries to the tongue which might be caused by a number of activities. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing from this farce, if you people want to get rid of a notable article then fine, merge it yourself. I'll leave this task to one of the helpful commentators here. I'm sure you can manage it, you know, given how well you know this area of medicine, how much research and work you have put into these articles. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:09, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I checked out two of the references; one is simply a reference of the other. It appears to me to be a neologism with one reference picking it up from another. Another reference was an anecdotal description of an emergency room visit-I don't know if that even counts as a single case study. Reference three calls it cunnilingus syndrome, not tongue. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2015 (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.