Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pain and pleasure


 * 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. ...but could definitely use improving. Joyous! | Talk 00:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Pain and pleasure

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although it cites plenty of WP:RS, this article is a rambling essay which is composed almost entirely of synthesis and original research, and which would need a complete rewrite to be kept. An acceptable article would be based solely on sources that discuss the pleasure-pain relationship, not based on ones that just describe individual parts of the puzzle and then assembling them via WP:SYN. The Anome (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - that the article's a mess is not in dispute. I'll try not to cite policies about AfD not being for cleanup, etc etc, but you'll take the point. The article does in fact cite sources that directly discuss the pleasure-pain relationship or putative continuum, such as refs [7] and [8]. The latter, "A common neurobiology for pain and pleasure" is a paper in Nature Reviews Neuroscience, certainly a reliable source, and focused exactly on the topic of this article. The article also mentions thinkers including Bentham, Spinoza, and Descartes, for all of whom there are plenty of reliable sources which discuss the pleasure-pain continuum. I offer no opinion on whether they were right, or even on whether the sources say these thinkers actually thought those things: simply that the topic certainly exists and is reliably documented. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - a good start, and not so bad it has to be wrecked. Bearian (talk) 00:35, 2 December 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.