Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urethral Play

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 Urethral sounding. Mangojuice^talk 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Urethral Play

Urethral Play (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Deprodded. Article is in its entirety unsourced original research. That someone somewhere does this is irrelevant - unless we can adduce multiple non-trivial reliable published sources about Urethral Play - and I doubt we can - this should go. -- Y not? 16:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a slight merge per Tevildo is a good idea -- Y not? 00:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete (eta) Merge to Urethral sounding per Tevildo, after deleting original research, such as improbable claim "Known cases of tubing over one inch in diameter and/or over six feet long has been successfully inserted and removed from filled bladders." and original research about prostate stimulation via the urethra. The reference in the article to "GoAskAlice" is the health center at Columbia University, which seems a pretty reliable source. Google search only shows a couple of hundred references, all to blogs and porn sites. Edison 17:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep as wierd as it sounds, I have heard of this type of play, particularly while listening to the radio show Loveline with Dr.Drew Pinsky. He is a board certified doctor and his discussion of this practice leads me to believe it is at least notable to a small demographic of BDSM people. Plm209^{(talk • contribs)} 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • As you may note, I concede that it's a real practice. Starblind thinks the same below. -- Y not? 00:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have no doubt that this is "real" in the sense that some people surely actually do it, but I'm not of the opinion that everything that gets someone off should necessarily have an article. At best this would be a sentence or two in the urethra article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Conditional Keep if OR can be removed without completely eradicating the article. --Xiaphias 19:21, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any recoverable content into Urethral sounding. I don't think we need two separate articles to cover both the medical and recreational areas of the subject. Tevildo 19:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The medical and recreational sides of this subject are completely disparate, and the sexual kink doesn't belong in the medical article. However, on the subject of the kink aspect, the recent AfD debate (which I missed, due to an unscheduled wikibreak) on the Urethral sounding article may provide some useful precedent, as the notability and sourceability of the kink aspect was part of the reason it was kept. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 20:07, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge I agree that it's (snicker) original research... now if I can get that particular image out of my head. Mandsford 23:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment A Foley catheter seems big, especially when shoved up one's wee wee, but way smaller than the claimed 1 inch garden hose shoved 6 feet up the ureter into the bladder. Agreed that there is no denying what bizarreness people may indulge in to get off, but it does not all deserve an encyclopedia article unless secondary sources have talked about it. Edison 06:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 18:17, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge, with sources and removing OR. One article should easily cover both medical and sexual uses. Aleta 18:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I strongly oppose merging with Urethral sounding. I originally split the articles, as the urethral play aspects did NOT belong in the medical article, but then I never got back to cleaning it up. I believe that there are sources to be found for the practice of urethral play, but am a little at a loss as to where to look, since I don't have any personal experience with urethral play or the BDSM community. However, I think this article needs cleanup, not deletion. With the help of editors experienced in this area, this could be a well-sourced informative article. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 18:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, and it should be moved to Urethral play, to conform to capitalization policies. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 18:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As someone who _does_ have some (limited) personal experience with the community in question, I can confirm that this practice is referred to as "sounding", whether or not it's done for medical reasons. Urethral sounding (or just sounding, which already has the appropriate link) is the first place anyone interested in the sexual aspects of the subject would look. Tevildo 21:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Can you help out with some sources, then? My stance is still that people looking for the sexual aspect of sounding will easily find the appropriate Urethral play article via the wikilinks in the Urethral sounding article, but that urethral play encompasses more than just using sounds for sexual pleasure (e.g. erotic electrostimulation, rubber toys, and flexible tubing or catheters), and that the whole subject would overbalance the Urethral sounding article in a non-medical direction. ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 22:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Quite tricky to find anything that'll pass WP:RS, but I'll see what I can do. This AfD probably isn't the ideal place to discuss the finer points of the subject, but I would say that it's wrong to conflate the three practices - urethral stimulation itself ("sounding", even if it doesn't use a medical sound), erotic catheterization (not only for direct stimulation, but as part of a medical fetish or urolagnia), and use of the urethra for electrostimulation, where it's often just a question of obtaining access to certain parts of the body. Tevildo 23:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
        • I wouldn't be opposed to creating separate articles for all three practices—I'm just not sure why someone opposed to "conflating" them is advocating for a "merge" to an article that's not even sexually related.  :) ≈≈Carolfrog≈≈♦тос♦ 23:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
          • No, that's not my point - we don't have an article on "Mouth play", we have separate articles on Kissing, Oral sex, and Voreaphilia. Urethral sounding can cover the stimulation aspects of this fetish, the other aspects can go into their appropriate articles. Tevildo 11:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Merging would be a good idea if there was any "recoverable content" but alas, there isn't. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 15:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge salvageable content to a subsection of the sounding article. And, for the record, "ouch". · jersyko talk 15:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Merge anything of importance to Urethral sounding, per Tevildo and Y Giggy _U^CP 04:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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.