Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hookup culture


 * 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. This is a clear consensus that this article has a number of quality issues. There seems to be a weak consensus that these issues should be fixed via editing rather than deletion. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hookup culture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

While the topic might be suitable/notable for an article, the article is written as a blatant personal POV essay, arguing that casual sex is a danger to American society, and supported by selectively quoting random figures from scholarship and the public debate. It should be redirected to Adolescent sexuality in the United States - from which it seems to be a POV fork. I do not consider the article salvageable as all of the material has clearly been selected and presented from a biased angle. It would require being written from scratch. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:32, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Also see Talk:Hookup culture, where discussion of the state of the article has taken place. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: I hope that those who vote keep based on notability, while realizing the blatant POV problem of the article, will help clean it up after the AfD ends if it should end with a keep. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. If the nominator herself belives that the topic is suitable for an article, I would suggest that she work to improve the article, which is substantial, rather than delete it.  I would also oppose moving it to Adolescent sexuality in the United States as much of this article is written about college students, not adolescents, and even includes a section on the wider society and non-students as well.  They are related, to be sure, but not close enough to be merged.  --Illuminato (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The article that you have written is almost entirely based on SYNTH and Original Research, and it is thoroguhly POV throughout. There really is nothing salvageable that I can see. If we need an article on this topic the material you have written needs to be deleted so that a neutral and non-SYNTH article can be written in its place. We have plenty of precent for deleting or stubbing articles as blatantly POV as this through the AfD process.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 10:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: See also this paragraph from the Review of General Psychology (cited in the article), showing its notability: "The past decade has witnessed an explosion in interest in the topic of hookups, both scientifically and in the popular media. Research on hookups is not seated within a singular disciplinary sphere; it sits at the crossroads of theoretical and empirical ideas drawn from a diverse range of fields, including psychology, anthropology, sociology, biology, medicine, and public health." --Illuminato (talk) 04:07, 25 June 2013‎ (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Enought reliable sources are cited for this to be a notable topic. It's separate from adolescent sexuality which normally refers specifically to the teenage years. Issues about bias can be dealt with by editing and aren't grounds for deletion. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep The nomination proposes redirection and this done by normal editing, not deletion. The content seems quite recentist and parochial but is well sourced and seems to be quite a notable topic.  Warden (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, significant coverage among particularly academic scholarly sources in books and academic journal articles. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Get rid of it. NPOV issues from start to finish; not just the moral stance taken on sexuality but also the focus on a rather thin slice of society - that is, students in the USA. Notability is not the only reason that articles get deleted or redirected; I don't doubt that there are independent sources which discuss this topic, but instead of a polemic, policy requires that a content should fairly reflect what the most reliable sources say. If somebody is going to write an article that complies with policy, and if for some reason they have to write it at this title rather than at Adolescent sexuality in the United States, the most practical (and lowest-risk) way to get there is to delete the current mess and start again. The article as it stands is a net negative. If we don't get rid of it, well, it's difficult to predict the future, but considering past experience with POV forks I think it's likely that a few months down the line we'll still have an article at this title, and it will still pass GNG, and it'll still fail NPOV. bobrayner (talk) 13:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * delete numerous sources are original research, a coatrack it an attempt to split a separate meaning from casual sex for an american slang term. - Altenmann >t 15:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This article is about hookup culture, not hookups themselves, which is more than just a slang term and thus deserving of an article apart from casual sex. --Illuminato (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep: The article describes the findings from a body of literature that believes there is such a thing as a 'hook-up culture' and which makes certain normative assertions about it. Imho, those who propose delete have issues with the literature the article describes, not the page itself. The page is poor quality right now and needs to be improved. The page could be improved by including the writings of those who take issue with advocates for the concept of 'hook-up culture'. It would be helpful if the page noted that discussion of this phenomenon is limited to a few academic disciplines in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Golub (talk • contribs) 19:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: Please note that the following text is included in the "Rise of hookup culture" section: ""The past decade has witnessed an explosion in interest in the topic of hookups, both scientifically and in the popular media. Research on hookups is not seated within a singular disciplinary sphere; it sits at the crossroads of theoretical and empirical ideas drawn from a diverse range of fields, including psychology, anthropology, sociology, biology, medicine, and public health.""


 * Delete. I came here expecting to vote speedy keep, but this article is a one-sided tract. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 22:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment We share the general sentiment of Maunus and Gamaliel but am loathe to recommend deletion for such a well-organized body of work. Perhaps it would be possible to move the page to "Criticism of hookup culture" or something along those lines. (Is the term "hookup culture" itself used mostly by authors who are critical of said culture? How does this affect our decision?) groupuscule (talk) 22:52, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * An elegant solution which would both preserve the work that went into this article and prevent the gruntwork of carving it into an NPOV article. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 23:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep if it represents a particular culture, and not a global view, simply say so in the lede. If we never covered everything but what was in common to all of mankind, we wouldn't be an encyclopedia. If the wordingis too much of OR, modify it. It is certainly real enough and there are certainly sources. I think there are NPOV uses of the term-- cf this book from OUP and this article and this one. here's an interesting pair of articles from Atlantic monthly in 2010 and 2012. Somehow, I doubt this is one of the topics where there is information to write an article.  DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * DGG, please look at the actual article. I am not arguing to delete based on lack of notability but on the state of the article itself. Tes there is a large literature and npov uses of the term. Just not in this article. I do not consider it salvageable, and I don't think anyone is going to even try. So if the article is kept as is we are going to have a POV diatribe against casual sex in WP article space for god knows how long. Delete it but let it be recreated by someone who is able and willing to write a balanced article.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Terribly biased, but NPOV cleanup is not addressed by deletion. Notable subject, as shown by plenty of references and sources. -- Cycl o pia talk  10:30, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not uncommon for unsalvageable POV articles to be deleted even though the topic is notable yes - deletion with no prejudice for recreation.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no such thing as "unsalvageable POV". Even if this means a complete rewrite, this still means you can fix by editing, not deletion. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you will.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope someone will, too -I personally have not enough knowledge on the topic to be of serious help. We have no deadline. I understand your concerns, but if you have concerns about the article, why didn't you fix the POV yourself, instead of asking for deletion? -- Cycl o pia talk  16:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I have already spent more time than I should working with a reluctant collaborator user:illuminato to get the article closer to being in line with our core policies. It has improved a little, but not nearly enough. If the article is deleted and rewritten from scratch by someone with an interest in NPOV that will save probably around a 50 hours of time I would guess. I can use my wikipedia time better than by cleaning up other people's messes. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ehm, "cleaning up other people's messes" is kind of the whole point of having a wiki. -- Cycl o pia talk  09:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If that is what wikipedia is for you then you should be happy at the chance of cleaning up this particular article - and I woudl have expected you to already be working at it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As I wrote above, I am not knowledgeable enough on this topic to clean this particular mess. But this doesn't change the fact that mess-cleaners and improvers we are. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Changing your vote to delete would be a good start on cleaning up this one.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Deletion is not cleanup, it never is. There is a huge amount of sources and material, in the article, that to me look like can be used -academic research etc. All it needs is someone who knows the topic that can help the POV concerns. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep The article most likely will require a major POV overhaul but there is enough source material that it is relevant. J.Rly (talk) 16:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The (relevant) sources cited are clearly discussing a subculture largely confined to college students in the US - the subject matter can (and should) be covered within the broader context of articles such as Adolescent sexuality in the United States. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article focuses too heavily on the US and obviously isn't neutral. However I think almost all of the article should be kept and used in other articles like Adolescent sexuality in the United States and Casual sex. Rubersan the Red (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2013 (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.