Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balano-preputial lamina

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 delete. Kurykh 00:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Balano-preputial lamina

Balano-preputial lamina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Although this term is used on some lobbyist websites and other unreliable sources, I have been unable to find reliable sources to verify the contents of this stub. I can't find any mention in anatomy texts. Using Google Scholar I found "Toward Regulation of Non-Therapeutic Genital Surgeries Upon Minors: A Preliminary Legal Strategy" and a journal letter. Neither, as far as I can tell, actually define the term, and at any rate both seem poor sources for an anatomy article (since both sources are written on behalf of lobby groups, I suspect that the term may be a neologism). Jakew 21:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as neologism. After similar Googling, I agree. Balano-preputial (see also Google Books and Google Scholar) is an uncommon but real anatomical term referring to that area. But, as you say, apart from that one paper "balano-preputial lamina" appears entirely in a lobbying context, and there are really only about 16 unique Google hits. I'd imagine they coined it because it's mildly punchier to have a single, albeit triple-barreled, name for the thing rather than having to call it "the epithelial layer fusing the foreskin to the glans" every time. Gordonofcartoon 01:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It is a standard anatomical term, as the above ed. agrees. The use in peer reviewed articles justifies it. Science uses terminology like that. DGG (talk) 03:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete I read them too quickly, this particular combination of terms. is indeed not shown to be a standard use. DGG (talk) 18:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment To clarify, the above editor stated that balano-preputial is a real term, but questioned the term balano-preputial lamina, which is the subject of the article. Jakew 10:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:FIVE - specialized encyclopedia part (assuming that this is really verifiable) Corpx
• Comment Soft Delete - While this part of the body is indeed real, this name is exceedingly unfamiliar. The "lamina" that is being named here appears to be the lamina propria of a specific portion of the prepuce. At the present time, however, I am unable to find confirmation of this article's contents. This is an article that desperately needs to cite a reliable source. Antelan ^talk 15:31, 14 August 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.