Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-Tape

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 Drip tape. JForget 01:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T-Tape

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

A how-to guide for a supposed method of foreskin restoration. All foreskin restoration topics are seriously fringe to begin with, Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, and this article has no reliable sources addressing notability or the correctness of the information presented, though it does have some low-value external links. Prod template was removed by an IP whose other recent edits have not improved the article. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Drip tape. T-tape (tm) is an agricultural drip tape sold by John Deere, and this what most g-hits say. As for the present-day "content", why should wikipedia promote self-healing-mutilation-andothernonsense? East of Borschov (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had never heard of this usage, but it appears legitimate to me. I have no personal objection to such a redirect, provided consensus agrees with you of course. — Gavia immer (talk) 00:21, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per East of Borschov. I could find only two printed sources that even mention the subject. Both of these sources are borderline — the first being a chapter in an anti-circumcision activist publication called "Male and Female Circumcision", and the second being a patent application. I did not evaluate the depth of coverage in these sources, as I regard the small number of sources to be evidence of lack of notability by itself. Jakew (talk) 09:11, 6 June 2010 (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.