Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anal eroticism


 * 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. (non-admin closure) buidhe 03:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Anal eroticism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Though an old article, this is a de facto psychoanalysis-centered WP:POVFORK of Anal masturbation and Anal sex. The content here is unsalvageable because it fails WP:MEDRS, including WP:MEDDATE. (Sexual health and psychiatry are medical topics.) Crossroads -talk- 03:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 03:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 03:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 03:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Surely the article isn't being nominated for deletion because it happens to be about a psychoanalytic concept? Obviously that would not be a proper basis for deleting it. Anal eroticism as a psychoanalytic concept is not identical with either anal masturbation or anal sex. According to Charles Rycroft in A Critical Dictionary of Psychoanalysis, "anal eroticism" refers to "sensuous pleasure derived from anal sensations"; clearly that is much broader than simply masturbation or sex. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with Freeknowledgecreator above, it is sufficiently distinct from Anal masturbation and Anal sex to warrant its own article. --John B123 (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Merely being about psychoanalysis is not the problem; failing MEDRS/MEDDATE and being a POV fork are. And even in non-medical topics (which this is not), WP:RS AGE applies. And some of the problem sources, like Kinsey and Comfort, are not psychoanalysis, but are still bad because they are too old. Crossroads -talk- 16:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I have not supported "keep" yet - my comment above is just a comment. But I am certainly not persuaded yet that there is a convincing case for deleting the article, and I'm not sure why anyone else would be either. It's fine to cite policies and guidelines, but not terribly helpful to cite them without explaining clearly how they support deleting the article. So far that is all I see here - mentioning of various guidelines or policies ("failing MEDRS/MEDDATE and being a POV fork") absent a substantive case. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Discussions in sources date back to Freud at least. The mental aspect of eroticism is distinct from the mechanical aspects of sex and masturbation.--Eostrix (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. An article about a specific concept that happens to be (partially) related with another is not necessarily a POV fork. A concept being old is not a reason for deletion either, as the concept is still discussed in the academia today (per quick JSTOR search). Even a concept itself being "wrong" is not a reason for deletion. --MarioGom (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. I did not initially support keep, but I am supporting keep now, as the nominator has not presented a satisfactory case for deletion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.