Deletion of G-spot amplification

Comment: just tip this junk/drivel over to a brief mention in G-spot (something that recently strongly suggested is a myth, making this a placebo proceedure of a myth). Reliable secondary source (per ) would use {{PMID|17766626}} to indicate but one of a number of cosmetic vaginal procedures with "lack of data supporting the efficacy". That anybody sought cosmetic surgery for the G spot I suppose mildly amusing, but that belongs in article on G-spot as a one liner noting this American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (reliable source) view. I disagree with Werner Heisenberg's view that the referencees show significant coverage - some titilating TV commentary does not make notability (most of those refs probably should be removed as failing to meet ) - but if some firm statistic brought to bear on numbers performed (eg 10,000 procedures in US in last couple years) then yes notable for being a significant minority viewpoint, but otherwise per  "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:MEDRS||WP:MEDRS||WP:NPOV)