Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Thomas sign

:{{la|John Thomas sign}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Thomas_sign Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|John Thomas sign}})

The article is an elaborate hoax. The purported X-ray photograph is an obvious fake. A similar "X-ray" of a purported knee-replacement, showing the end of an enormous penis, also makes the rounds. (I'd post a copy but I don't own the copyright.) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I don't know that it's a hoax as much as it is a medical school gag. Seems like it's been given sufficient attention [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187705681400036X], [https://ispub.com/IJOS/8/2/5159]. That X-ray was uploaded to Commons as "own work" but I really doubt it, since it's from an old meme —Мандичка^YO 😜 16:44, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This is not a hoax, although I see that it was prod-deleted last month as a hoax. A quick Google search would have established that is a real term - though possibly not notable. As Мандичка says, it's actually medical humor; as a clinical sign it is worthless. It's also known as the Throckmorton sign. Google search [https://www.google.com/search?q=John+Thomas+sign&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS568US570&oq=John+Thomas+sign&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5087j0j9&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=91&ie=UTF-8] suggests that there may be enough Reliable Source information to do something with this. Let me take a stab at it. Neutral for now. --MelanieN (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

::A medical school gag presented as a genuine diagnostic phenomenon, complete with fake or cooked-up references to add verisimilitude, is a hoax, isn't it? Whatever one might call it, how many other student gags get Wikipedia articles? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:45, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

:::I don't see how the article is claiming it is a genuine diagnostic phenomenon, as it says "The sign is employed as a humorous aside. Studies have shown that the "sign" is no better than chance at identifying the location of a hip fracture." —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

:::: In fairness, that second sentence was not there at the time the article was nominated for AfD. I just added it. --MelanieN (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Delete (Changing to Keep, see below.) I took a look at sources and added one to the article, but I concluded that this term is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Even a reference to the BMJ, normally a reliable source, was actually written tongue-in-cheek.[http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/yorkshire-men-straight-point-or-not-validation-john-thomas-sign] Medicine has hundreds of in-jokes like this, but this one at least is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. (Deleting the article will also get rid of the obviously faked image, which we should probably warn Commons about. I suspect it is his own work - using Photoshop!) --MelanieN (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• keep the fact that the joke was a subject of at least three articles in serious medical journals makes in a notable medical gag. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• P.S. Here is another good one: "Jared Rosenberg and John Thomas, senior editors of International Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health" - (this is not a joke, -S.L.). Staszek Lem (talk) 23:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep Covered in multiple sources; sources indicate that it's well-known and allow an accurate article to be written explaining its (lack of) diagnostic value. The copyright status of the image is irrelevant. Colapeninsula (talk) 13:13, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per SL and Cola —Мандичка^YO 😜 18:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I still favor deletion. However, if the article is kept, I will undertake to improve it. And I will replace the phony X-ray with a real one, of which there are several at Commons. --MelanieN (talk) 23:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep! When I was an orthopaedics house officer 17 years ago, a couple of the ortho junior doctor trainees would regularly comment on the "John Thomas positive" and "John Thomas negative" fractures (in a jovial way). The phenomenon is not a hoax. Moreover, suitable sources are included in the article to support notability. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
• Obvious keep given the sources in the article. However, the image may very well be a fake. EEng (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I wonder how many people who favor keeping this article have actually read the sources cited. Two are letters to the editor, which presumably are not peer-reviewed, and could be written by anybody. Two appear to address only genital asymmetry, not the purported "sign". (They are not freely accessible, so I'm going by the titles. If somebody has read the articles and can quote them as to the "John Thomas sign", please correct me.) The only source cited that involves a scientific study finds that the "sign" is of no diagnostic value: i.e. that it is not a sign at all. What the sources establish is that this is a popular joke among physicians. Is Wikipedia now a repository for popular jokes? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 15:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

::Yes, WP is a repository for jokes, if they're notable jokes, and this one clearly is. EEng (talk) 16:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

::::What are some other jokes told in the form of Wikipedia articles? J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

:::RE: Not peer reviewed: true, and so they would be worthless in establishing this as an actual medical diagnostic sign. But this article is not about an actual medical diagnostic sign, and we will need to make that clearer if the article is kept. Those letters to the editor CAN be used to help establish notability of the subject. BTW speaking of letters to the editor, anyone who enjoys dry British humor should read the BMJ letter I linked above. It's a riot, full of double-entendres. Who knew that the BMJ has a sense of humor? --MelanieN (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

::::If the article is to be kept as a joke, then the fake X-ray with the mammoth cock should be restored: it's heart and soul of the "humor". I would still delete the whole thing. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::The article wouldn't be kept as a joke, but because it documents a joke. For analogous articles see GOMER, The Aristocrats, Dead baby jokes, World's funniest joke, The Funniest Joke in the World, Flatulence humor and many more. Oh yeah -- and Dick_joke. EEng (talk) 19:13, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

::::::If the article is to be kept as documentation of a joke, it will need to be rewritten entirely. When I first proposed its deletion, IIRC, it was plainly a hoax, presented as if it documented a legitimate diagnostic sign. It has since been slightly modified to hint that the purported "sign" is a joke (or "humorous aside"), but it still retains the form of a serious article about a diagnostic sign. It is not presently comparable to the articles EEng cites, which are not jokes in themselves but are about jokes. (Except for GOMER which doesn't have to do with a joke at all.) J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 20:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::::WP:NOTCLEANUP. Only in extreme circumstances do we WP:BLOWITUP. You're wasting everyone's time repeating these same complaints, which aren't relevant to AfD. EEng (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC) GOMER is medical "insiders' talk", which applies here.

• Comment The so called John Thomas sign is a joke, but the image is NOT a fake. I see hundreds of X-rays every day and I can assure you, that there is no need to fake it. Even though this is obviously a prominent case for the joke(!)-sign. There are other terms for jokes in radiology as for example "rorschach radiology". I don't think the article is vital, but I repeat, this image is real. Best regards! --Hellerhoff (talk) 19:25, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

::IMO either the image has been photoshopped to insert an erect penis (which is what I think - the angle of attachment seems wrong too), or else somebody deliberately got the subject to exhibit erection before taking the X-ray. Just compare it to the results of Google Image Search; [http://www.google.com/search?q=%22john+thomas+sign%22&tbm=isch&hl=en&gbv=2&oq=&gs_l=] this one (top row right in my search) is clearly an outlier. In fact I found one at the Polish encyclopedia [https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objaw_Throckmortona#/media/File:Normal-pelvis-001.jpg] which would be perfectly fine as an image here. Yes, the Polish Wikipedia has an article about this - under its other name, Throckmorton Sign.[https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objaw_Throckmortona] As for refocusing the article, I will undertake that if the article is kept. A good lead sentence would be something like what I found at whonamedit.com: "Throckmorton's sign is a slang term used jokingly by medical students and residents".[http://www.whonamedit.com/synd.cfm/3050.html] P.S. My favorite radiology joke (pathology too) is the "retrospectoscope". That's a device you use to modify your reading of the film, after you already know what the patient has. --MelanieN (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

::The more I take part in this discussion, the more I realize that this article should be kept. Changing my !vote above. --MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a long-standing thing in radiology. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

::Ha ha. Yes. Long, standing thing. I get it. Very encyclopedic. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 16:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

:::Good. Now do you get WP:N as it applies here? EEng (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.