Deletion of List of cases of penis removal

Comment: This is a heavily sourced article, yes, but I likewise believe it runs afoul of  as an indiscriminate collection of information; indiscriminate because in the overwhelming number of cases, no evidence has been proffered as to why this incident or that is notable or noteworthy.  We don't have a List of rape victims - and that's a good thing - for similar reasons.  The one ''other'' reason likewise applies here: that the list is overwhelmingly of cases within the last ten years, the great majority of which presumably involve still-living people, and such sensationalism certainly runs afoul of the intent of .  Finally, to those Keep proponents who claim that this is not an indiscriminate list, the main section bears the heading "Selected cases of penis removal" - "selected" according to which "nondiscriminate" criteria, exactly
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:BLP)

Comment: 1) No example of copyvio claim. 2) The article does have a selection criteria.  Having an article on every entry is just 1 common type of selection criteria.  There are other types (see ) as long as membership criteria is based on reliable sources.  News articles are reliable secondary sources.  Primary sources are documents directly associated with people in the events (for example, wife's diary, husband's love letter to mistress, etc.) 3) Advances the claim/conclusion one of the severed penis images is fake because few news articles publish it and original source does not cite its source.  One possibility and more likely explanation few news articles publish it because of censorship of severed genitalia in a for-profit commercial product.  All the news articles I was able to find with only the woman's image also does not cite their source.  It may be more likely as a government entity the police released the woman/penis photos into the public domain and news agencies exercise discretion in usage
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (WP:LSC)

Comment: Do we have a list of homicides?  We don't, because Wikipedia is |not an indiscriminate collection of information.  (And if there ''really is'' any copyright violation in the article, we ought to delete it regardless of the number of votes to keep.)  Special:Contributions/68.55.112.31|68.55.112.31
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Very well put together subject on what seems to be a notable occurance. Well sourced and one of WP's better lists, with clear inclusion criteria and plenty of coverage to meet . The comment of "This article is damaging wikipedia's reputation, is completely unencyclpoedia" is quite frankly, rubbish (compare the recent Halloween frontpage and Gropecunt Lane, for example
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: This article really points out a flaw in .  Just because something can be cited, doesn't mean we should have an encyclopedia article about it.  Another example is Social impact of thong underwear which was closed as a "keep" where most folks who said "keep" blindly followed policy without thinking about it
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)