Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hookup culture (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hookup culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is more of a personal essay than an objective article. It is clearly part of a concerted effort to use Wikipedia to publish numerous articles promoting a point of view on the issue of adolescent sexuality. It was discussed at Articles for deletion/Hookup culture in 2013, and a number of editors thoght it should be deleted, while others thought it should be substanmtially rewritten to address the concerns. The closing administrator wrote "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." However, after more than three years, the suggested rewritign has not taken place, and the article is still an essay existing to express a point of view. It is essentially a fork of such articles as Adolescent sexuality and Adolescent sexuality in the United States. If anyone has suitable content on the topic of Hookup culture, and can write about it from a neutral point of view, and if for some reason that content does not seem suitable for inclusion in one of the other existing articles, then it may be suitable to create a new article on this subject, but the present article is unsuitable. I am unconvinced that there is a need for a separate article on this topic, but if we are to have one then someone can Blow it up and start over: the suggestion of improving this article has not been taken up in three years, and probably isn't going to be taken up. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article started out as a POV fork of Adolescent sexuality in the United States, and, despite spirited discussion on the talk page, has never really progressed beyond that point.  I believed at one point that the article was fixable, but I've come to think that maybe I was naive.  The article would need to be rewritten from scratch to fix the soapboxing, cherry-picking, and POV-pushing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * keep. Hook-up culure is not unique to adolescents so a merge or redict would be misleading. It would also suggest that adolescents and adults are somehow of a different species or something. Yes, the article has not been rewritten but the reason for that is that it hasn;t been tagged, nor have invocations been made to the appropriae talk pages and noticeboards. Sufficient effort has so far not been exhausted to opt for the most extreme option, which would be deletion. 79.67.71.120 (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: JamesBWatson and NinjaRobotPirate, if I remembering correctly, the article was rewritten (as in substantially downsized and tweaked). Talk:Hookup culture/Archive 1, Talk:Hookup culture/Archive 2 and the discussions currently on the article talk page show what happened. Also, the article is currently the target of an upcoming WP:Student assignment, and looking at the sources that HollyElizHart (one of the upcoming student editors) listed on the talk page indicates to me that a new version after the deletion of this one would not be all that different. I would rather student editors build on the current one than have to be guided to make one that complies with our policies and guidelines. It's often that our students editors need to be guided on the way our articles should be, and that their edits need to be tweaked. The Hookup culture topic is WP:Notable, and so I won't vote for its deletion. On a side note: It's very likely that the above IP is the editor who created the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:13, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I said in Articles for deletion/Political positions of Jill Stein that the topic was notable, and it still got deleted as a POV fork. I didn't think it was a POV fork, but apparently I got outvoted.  I think this article is a POV fork, but I guess we'll see if I get outvoted again.  I don't really know what the students are going to do, but their talk page posts give me more hope than Illuminato's ever did.  One of them posted both negative and positive statistics from a source, which is something that Illuminato would never have done.  I'd be surprised if there weren't a cherry shortage in 2013 due to all the cherry-picking going on.  But if they're going to work off this POV fork, it'll simply be a slightly better POV fork.  The only way to properly fix this article is start over from scratch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I am never very keen on arguments that something should be kept because it's part of a student assignment, or something of the sort. If an article doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's standards, then it should not be kept, no matter who is working on it. I also note the suggestion that "the new version after the deletion of this one would not be all that different". If the current version does not satisfy Wikipedia's standards, then encouraging students (or anyone else) to create a new version which is not much different is probably encouraging them to create a new version which does not satisfy Wikipedia's standards; how is that helpful? It is neither helpful to Wikipedia, as it perpetuates a bad article, nor is it helpful to the students, who learn wrong ideas about what is acceptable. The proposal to delete the article should be discussed on the merits of the article, not on the basis of speculation about some possible new version which may or may not be better but which does not yet exist, nor on the basis of making allowances because of who is working on it. Giving students a chance to learn how to contribute to Wikipedia is good, but distorting our standards for them isn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The article being kept because it's part of a student assignment wasn't really my argument. That the topic is notable, which is why students will be working on it (and/or have added to it in the past), is my argument. I entertained the idea of a future article because that idea is entertained in your initial post above. I'm familiar with the hookup culture literature and I'm not sure what kind of difference is expected by blowing up the article and rewriting it from scratch. What is in the article is pretty much just about everything there is to state about the topic. Whatever sources can be used to help balance out any perceived biases is obviously a good thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:55, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Our article is, well, pretty terrible. But that's true of a lot of articles, and AFD is not cleanup; this isn't TNT-level defective. The topic is clearly notable, and not directly a duplicate of something like Adolescent sexuality in the United States. How do I know? Well, for one thing, there are no shortage of high-quality sources:
 * -- This is a literature review in a highly prestigious journal which confirms that hookup culture, while most prevalent among adolescents, is not restricted to them.
 * -- Here's a contra article, which suggests from survey data that at least some hookup culture claims in college student populations are inflated and that the trend may be merely towards more social discussion of casual sex rather than more actual practice of it.
 * -- And here's an effort to create a quantifiable index for how (and why) individuals endorse hookup culture, complete with survey data to support the validity of the metric.
 * I could go on. Social science stuff, broadly, isn't my area of interest. But writing about other topics in Wikipedia, I'd kill to have page after page of scholarly articles in the top end journals in the relevant fields. To say nothing of the several major books published on the topic, plus attention from more conventional journalistic sources (like The New York Times). Does this article need to be improved? Clearly. Does it need to be better delineated from other articles on similar, but not synonymous, topics? Naturally. Those are editorial processes. But I cannot see a cause for deletion here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   11:36, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Eh, screw it. I struck out my vote.  I don't care so much that I'm going to make a huge deal out of this.  If consensus is against a TNT delete, so be it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 15 October 2016 (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.