Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female genital cosmetic surgery

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 redirect to Genital modification and mutilation#Female genitals. 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. Sandstein 20:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Female genital cosmetic surgery

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

Non-notable with little to no third party sources. Also a merge to Cosmetic surgery would be an idea. Tinton5 (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 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 WP:N. Review papers have been published in peer-reviewed journals! I can't honestly see how the nominator can claim a lack of notability. (Their previous attempt at speedy deletion via CSD A1 was equally bewildering.) I also don't think there's any merit to a merger with cosmetic surgery, itself only a section of the wider plastic surgery. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:28, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Genital modification and mutilation, which links to the two articles this subject looks to claim: vaginoplasty and labiaplasty. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep 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. Andrew D. (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a very popular topic, and there are documentary films about it. I found the following on Google: this article from The Guardian, this article from CBC.ca, and this article from BBC Online. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question @NinjaRobotPirate, Andrew Davidson, and Stemonitis: Could you help me to understand this one? Here is the entirety of the article after the lead: 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 minora is the most common form of female genital surgery. -- It is a subject broken into two types, which we already have pretty good articles for: labiaplasty and vaginoplasty. We also have the article Genital modification and mutilation, which includes a section Labiaplasty and vaginoplasty. 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 Genital modification and mutilation, 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. genital plastic surgery)? I'm not in a position to research how often that term is used, at the moment, though... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 question of whether the subject is notable, which it plainly is. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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, WP:CONCEPTDAB 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 as:

Female genital cosmetic surgery
In search of (better) sexual pleasure: female genital 'cosmetic' surgery
Female genital cosmetic surgery
Female genital cosmetic surgery: Freakish or inevitable? Analysis from medical marketing, bioethics, and feminist theory
The Women Are Doing It For Themselves: The Rhetoric of Choice and Agency around Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery
Female genital cosmetic surgery: A critical review of current knowledge and contemporary debates
Female genital cosmetic surgery–the future
Female genital cosmetic and plastic surgery: a review
Female cosmetic genital surgery
Female genital mutilation: whose problem, whose solution?

Please do such research before proposing solutions to problems that may not exist. Andrew D. (talk) 14:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 you didn't even allow the argument to get to that point.
The fact that there are two main techniques or sub-divsions of the topic is quite irrelevant for the issue of deletion. Of course it's relevant, if we already have articles on both of them as well as on a broader subject.
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?
The point is that this very content is already duplicated in two 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 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. Certainly not opposed to moving it to the draftspace, of course. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 Genital modification and mutilation, but if it were 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. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Genital modification and mutilation as suggested by rhododendrites. BakerStMD 00:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Rhododendrites and perhaps refine to § Female genitals. Not § Labiaplasty and vaginoplasty because the other subsections appear also satisfying the title. The original article equating FGCS with only those two kinds looks slightly original research without sources making the definition out right. 野狼院ひさし u/t/c 13:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC) + 13:49, 12 April 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.