Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.161.251.139 (talk) at 17:32, 28 July 2013 (ce: indents for legibility). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction

Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creating for an IP user. Reasoning copied from the talk page:

This page on a medical topic, erectile dysfunction, is not currently supported by reliable medical sources. I have been unable to find any recent ones on PubMed. While I do not have access to PsycINFO, potential sources I've examined on GoogleScholar and Google Books have all been anecdotal and fail WP:MEDRS. Additionally, the current title does not appear on either GoogleScholar [1] or Google Books [2] (though there are several hundred non-reliable entries on Google [3]). Per consensus at WT:MED#Pornography-induced_erectile_dysfunction [4], the topic does not appear notable enough for a stand-alone article. If reliable medical sources can be produced on the topic, the information could be added into the Erectile dysfunction page.
86.161.251.139 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

My posting this should not be construed as a !vote or commentary on the merits or demerits of this debate. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It may not be medically reliable, but the meme passes WP:GNG by leaps and bounds. Perhaps the title and or wording should be changed to indicate it is not a medically established fact. Broadening the topic may be helpful. Other forms of sexual dysfunction are also associated (maybe not scientificially, but still) with excessive porn viewing. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but that can be addressed via editing. WP:NOTCLEANUP Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you demonstrate how by editing the page? I don't see any unambiguous way of doing that: the page title itself clearly implies a clinical condition—erectile dysfunction. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then do it. Clean the article! Show it can be done through action, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to show it. None of the concerns are about notability or intrinsic unsuitability of the topic, the nomination therefore asks for cleanup. About doing it myself, I don't think I am knowledgeable enough on the topic, nor sure of what cleanup to do, to help now. But I could try later. However it is the nominator who is worried about the article: she/he should start working on it. -- cyclopiaspeak! 16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are concerns about the notability of the topic. None of the sources is reliable per MEDRS, and so far no searches have yielded any reliable sources either. As Wikipedia defines it, this suggests a notability issue. Lesion (talk) 16:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Erectile disfunction. I don't think this is notable enough without enough sources. Beerest355 Talk 14:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, per my and others' comments at the article's talk page that support deleting or redirecting it. Like I stated there: "As the IP knows, I'm the one who started the aforementioned discussion. I agree with the IP, and this article should be deleted or, in case MEDRS-compliant sources are found for it or eventually exist to support it, redirected to the Erectile dysfunction article. The matter can be sufficiently covered in that article once, if ever, it has MEDRS-compliant sources to support it. I would suggest merging, but there is apparently nothing valid to merge. The view that the sources used for this information on Wikipedia thus far are unreliable is additionally supported by this edit and this edit by Jytdog at the Erectile dysfunction article." Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator. I have edited the article to address the concerns mentioned here. The subject is definitely notable as a meme, and it is usually called by the article title. --Editor2286 (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The concerns are by no means addressed in the current version [5]. "Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction or impotence is the reported inability to develop or maintain an erection caused by heavy pornography use" is clearly a medical claim. Reporting is a key aspect of medical research and causality is difficult to verify. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it was obvious that the reporting meant was men reporting their condition on internet forums, but I have edited it again to read "...is the inability to develop or maintain an erection purportedly caused by heavy pornography use." --Editor2286 (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when is people reporting things on internet forums a reliable source for anything? The internet, Sea of Cowards that it is, allows people to say whatever they want with no requirement for any evidence or accountability. It also allows one or two people with non-mainstream opinions to appear to be many people by the creation of sock puppets. How do we know this is not a single person with religious, anti-pornography moralistic views, who is making up some stories about how pornography gave them erectile dysfunction? We simply don't, and this is why it is not reliable evidence. Some of the sources used in this stub may regard things people say on internet forums as reliable evidence that there is a issue here, and I think this rightly leads us to conclude that those sources are unreliable. Maybe some researchers might give this attention in the years to come, and maybe someone will publish a reliable secondary source citing that research. At that point, not before, wikipedia should create an article on the topic. Lesion (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(Forgot which user I borrowed this quote from, but it has stuck with me). Lesion (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- if this is being presented as a medical condition, then there need to be MEDRS compliant sources. People reporting something on an internet forum does not make it a real medical condition, it's just more people stating boring opinions on the internet (**hypocrisy alert**). The blog and the Dr Oz show are definitely not suitable sources, I can't assess the book, but it's using terms like "sexual brain maps" I wonder how mainstream it is... per above comment from a reliable editor, a search for sources on PubMed, google scholar did not find anything on this supposed condition. Redirect is only appropriate if a MEDRS source can be found to support some of this content ... unless ... there is potential mention of this based upon these same sources in "society and culture" sections of erectile dysfunction and/or pornography. I generally think that WP:RS generally rather than WP:MEDRS applies to the history and society and culture sections of medical pages. This would be the appropriate way to document a "meme" and present it as it is rather than presenting it as a medical condition when it is not. I would alter the wording of such content to reflect the lack of medical sources, but this might be hard to do without breaching WP:OR. Lesion (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete As noted the blog and the tv show are not reliable. This purports to be a medical condition, and the sourcing is clearly inadequate for that. what is left is half a paragraph from the book The Brain That Changes Itself, which does not meet WP:MEDRS, and does not give sufficient coverage anyway. To claim an internet meme is notable you need to show that it is of note. This is done through WP:GNG. This has not been shown, I found no reliable sources, and thus the article inherently violates WP:NPOV as it can not be made neutrally without implying that Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction exists despite no MEDRS source stating that. Symptomatic of this is that despite 5 days at AfD, the article still fails WP:MEDRS requirements and makes claims about Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pornography-induced_erectile_dysfunction&oldid=566173277"