The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Many editors express concerns about the quality of this article, but there's a strong consensus that these issues should be addressed outside of AfD. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of pornography[edit]

Effects of pornography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TNT is needed, since the article has become a garbage bin of violating WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify for complete rewriting. The current direction of the article is unsalvageably vague. It is like have an article titled Effects of food on weight presenting conclusions that eating food (of unspecified kinds) leads to getting fat, with the implied corollary that the healthiest route is never eating food. BD2412 T 05:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hope you know I'm stealing this line BD. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify stat, per nom and BD2412’s very funny analysis. I’d also consider draftification of Effect of sex in the media, which looks even worse at a glance. Update: vote neutral, jumped the gun, agree with Jclemens and also WP:NOTCLEANUP. “It’s crappy” is not a reason to send a vital article to deletion. Dronebogus (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 16:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. ^{Engr. Smitty Werben} 16:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 1) No underlying cause for deletion is articulated, 2) No specific WP:MEDRS violations are contended, 3) no attempts have been made to edit out any MEDRS violations, and 4) A wikiproject inquiry at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Effects of pornography yielded no specific issues either. A more accurate and detailed statement is necessary for this to be evaluated. Jclemens (talk) 17:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I made this proposal because I'm asking for help. This task is too much for me, I am not a medical professional, and I do not want to be alone against two dozens well-meaning people who don't abide by WP:MEDRS. The article is crammed with medical claims, overt and covert, 90% of which I guess utterly fail WP:MEDRS. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is neither the right forum, nor the right way to go about such a thing. If you want help to improve the article, start by cataloguing errors or problems, ask for help, use the talk page and appropriate wikiprojects. If you want to do that, withdraw the AfD as premature, because you've failed to articulate what specific problems need to be addressed. It's a big article with a lot of sources, so if you think 90% is problematic, you need to be able to articulate which is problematic and why. TNT is a last resort, not a first resort. Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Primary-source science papers are disallowed, correct? As in, papers that report the results of a single study, rather than review articles? @Tgeorgescu: It looks like the recent additions that have driven you to give up and come to AfD are from an undergraduate student editor with WikiEdu, who probably got told "no original research" not "no papers reporting the results of a single study". If you're at the end of your rope on this and think you might WP:BITE them, I'm happy to go talk to them. I notice that WP:MED aren't linked on the talk page of this article, and it might be worth hailing someone there for help picking out the stuff that violates WP:MEDRS guidelines. -- asilvering (talk) 20:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Incorrect – primary science papers are allowed, though WP:MEDRS heavily discourages them. There are exceptions, for example if you look here you can see I recently suggested a couple of primary papers be incorporated in one of our medical FAs, and leading MEDs editors agreed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Asilvering: I'm not accusing the student. The problem dates back several months and maybe several years. The general problem is that there are very few sources about the effects of pornography which pass WP:MEDRS. I.e. top-quality research (i.e. indexed for MEDLINE), and at the same time systematic reviews of literature.

  The student popped up a few days ago, my criticism of According to WP:SCIRS, Cite reviews, don't write them is older.

  To put the finger where it hurts, this is generally true for porn research: a small amount of variation gets explained, and causality cannot be shown.

  And 90% of the papers about porn are even far below such research level (either they do no have empirical data at all, or there is no responsible statistical work done on the empirical data). tgeorgescu (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Just fyi, this is not really a wp:med article, hence it not being on the talk page. While a fair chunk of the article does make "medical" claims per the WP definition, it's not actually directly related to medicine. And a fair amount of the article doesn't make medical claims, as pointed out in the above discussion. If you think people will struggle to differentiate (and they will, tbh), you can always put an invisible comment on the health-related sections reminding people that they need to meet MEDRS. --Xurizuri (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. A decent article that isn't too far of the POV found in the latest systematic reviews. The guess that 90% of the article "utterly fail WP:MEDSRS" is wildly inaccurate. Less than 10% fits that description (though probably about 40% needs improvement to be fully MEDS compliant.) The vagueness BD2412 criticises is a reflection of the lack of current scientific consensus on this topic, depsite the many thousands of studies in this area. Lastly, it's sub optimal to put an article up for deletion when a student's working on it for their assignment and is due to finish in two days. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep I just want to back up FeydHuxtable's statement about scientific consensus. The research in this area has a lot of holes in it, but WP summarises the scientific consensus. And so here we are. The most we can do is include the enormous amount of criticism of the research, which there is some attempts at within the article. --Xurizuri (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but blow up straight away. Strip any and everything not sourced impeccably at the right level. Hyperbolick (talk) 04:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup, removing poorly sourced material, etc. This is obviously a notable and well-studied topic.VR _talk 05:05, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously a notable topic, and I'm surprised to see this get listed. WP:Deletion is not cleanup. Regarding "vagueness", I agree with FeydHuxtable. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - AfD is not cleanup. The article is clearly deeply flawed and many parts should be excised, but the topic itself is still clearly notable. Since this subject is inevitably controversial and likely a magnet for editorialising and poorly-sourced tangents (ie. the Pamela Anderson bit) I can see a strong argument for applying some level of page protection so more-experienced editors who are knowledgeable in the field can focus on finding the highest-quality sources and creating a more coherent article with less of an issue of people just slipping rubbish into it. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a notable article, it's just messy. Stubify it if it's that much of an issue. --Xurizuri (talk) 22:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I agree that the article as it is now is mainly about health (mental and physical) and WP:MEDRS should therefore be its main guide for sourcing. The merge added a lot, although a little cutting followed. So there's just more work to do on the article now. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.