"  

 ::Those dictionary definitions just say ""penis."" Can someone point me to a definition that prescribes ""erect"" please?    

 :::...And if the article is in any way about the subject as defined by these dictionary definitions, it is a content fork of penis and/or human penis, and must be deleted or merged into the relevant article(s), per policy. We do not allow content forks (and this is not a dictionary).    
 :::::::Why? Please explain where this idea comes from? 
 ::::Ah. Fair enough. Nevertheless, the lead should, in my opinion, mention the other uses of the term; and I'd still like to see a citation confirming the necessity of ""erect."" But content fork? No.    
 :::::The lead should summarise the article content. There is already a hatnote that makes clear what the article is about. We don't need to say the same thing twice.    
 ::::::OK. I agree. The hatnote pointing to Primordial phallus does the job.    
 IP, do you see the point being made here, that primordial phallus, a stage in the development of the (human?) penis/clitoris, belongs in its own article or one that addresses the development of genitalia, and this article isn't about that?    
 :Not exactly. It is one meaning of phallus, is obviously related to the main subject of this article, and was previously part of this article. That it is not now included is self evident - but the argument that the article is not about this, so it shouldn't be included is non-sensical. There is only a hat note because I added it, as all references had previously been removed.    
 :: "