Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melolagnia (arousal)


 * 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 delete. Consensus is narrowly in favour of deletion; if anyone wants to restore this article (or to draft), ping me and I'll look into it. Such a shame is no longer around to work on this :-( Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)  13:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Melolagnia (arousal)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I have been uinable to find this term in actual use. I can find definitions in various dictionaries, and the word being used as a title of a piece of music, but I do not think the referneces establish this as an actual concept suitable for an encyclopedia  DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - I was literally nominating this at the same time. This fails WP:GNG and WP:MEDRS, as is evident from the poor sources used here (BuzzFeed listicle, really...) and the lack of anything substantive for "melolagnia" on Google Scholar. Crossroads -talk- 23:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey. I made some improvements to the article. Is it now acceptable by Wikipedia's policies? Would you now re-consider you stance on the issue? Best regards. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry but no; the sources you have added are unreliable as well, and the only one that at first glance may seem reliable, the book by Adele Bertei, is not significant coverage as required by WP:GNG. Crossroads -talk- 04:07, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey again. I'v made even more improvements. What do you think about this article now? Is it still badly sourced? Best regards. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes. See Vaticidalprophet's comment below. Crossroads -talk- 04:24, 29 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Weak delete: Glad Pek wants to improve the article, but I'm unconvinced this is improvable. It's poorly cited and says a lot of things that are pretty questionable to say in wikivoice (e.g. the Shakespeare thing). I'm unsympathetic, as a class, to low-quality articles on trivial and possibly nonexistent psychological phenomena, because they get picked up by pop-psych reusers and misused. Vaticidalprophet 16:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey. I'm trying to find good sources, but it's really hard. I'v now added some more sources and content, but I'm not sure if they are good enough. What do you think? Best regards. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (Fixed the formatting of this reply, which was given to the deletion-sorts by accident; revert if procedurally unwanted.) The issue I see here is, as you say, it's really hard to find good sources -- and that leads to that they don't exist. Niche psychology stubs, unlike a lot of niche stubs, are actually dangerous, in that they get reused and citogenesis-ed by pop-psych sources in ways that mislead the population about psychology. A psych article for a neologism sourced to Sparknotes, a dictionary, listicles, and one line in a book about "getting your Fifty Shades on" is an article that can mislead people. There are subjects where my reaction to 'weak' sourcing is "Honestly, this is fine, you're overreacting", but this isn't one of them. Vaticidalprophet 12:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC) <div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.