Talk:Cello scrotum

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notability

I'm not sure this minor hoax merits a separate article and I would be inclined to merge and redirect it to Baroness Murphy's biography article. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:38, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Although this "condition" has been covered in exactly the kind of scholarly sources Wikipedia wants to see more of, there's no indication (despite the statement in the CNN article) that this hoax has really established independent notability. Merging with Murphy's article, with a redirect kept in place, of course, works for me. Of course if this article is expanded to indicate such notability does exist, then we can keep it here. 23skidoo (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose for now. I've reversed my opinion based upon looking at some of the sources mentioned in the link below. I think there might be enough for this to fly on its own. No objection to revisiting the issue, but on second consideration I don't think a merge is justified anymore. Not yet. I'll be surprised if this article survives the week without an AFD challenge, though. 23skidoo (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the references here might show independent notability. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add more citations. Consensus was to oppose merge. Fences and windows (talk) 06:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]