Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 07:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Creating for an IP user. Reasoning copied from the talk page: This page on a medical topic, erectile dysfunction, is not currently supported by reliable medical sources. I have been unable to find any recent ones on PubMed. While I do not have access to PsycINFO, potential sources I've examined on GoogleScholar and Google Books have all been anecdotal and fail WP:MEDRS. Additionally, the current title does not appear on either GoogleScholar or Google Books  (though there are several hundred non-reliable entries on Google ). Per consensus at WT:MED, the topic does not appear notable enough for a stand-alone article. If reliable medical sources can be produced on the topic, the information could be added into the Erectile dysfunction page. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC) My posting this should not be construed as a !vote or commentary on the merits or demerits of this debate. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 20:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. It may not be medically reliable, but the meme passes WP:GNG by leaps and bounds. Perhaps the title and or wording should be changed to indicate it is not a medically established fact. Broadening the topic may be helpful. Other forms of sexual dysfunction are also associated (maybe not scientificially, but still) with excessive porn viewing. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The page clearly sets out to describe a clinical condition, NOT an internet meme. Wikipedia cannot just start inventing clinical conditions in this way, based on individual opinion and memes. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 21:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree, but that can be addressed via editing. WP:NOTCLEANUP Gaijin42 (talk) 21:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you demonstrate how by editing the page? I don't see any unambiguous way of doing that: the page title itself clearly implies a clinical condition—erectile dysfunction. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 21:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Erectile dysfunction (as proposer). 86.161.251.139 (talk) 21:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, essentially per, above. Also, WP:NOTCLEANUP. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, also per above. All concerns of nom can be solved by editing, and as such deletion policy requires article to be kept. If the title is misleading, it can be moved to a new title. --  cyclopia  speak!  15:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then do it. Clean the article! Show it can be done through action, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is no need to show it. None of the concerns are about notability or intrinsic unsuitability of the topic, the nomination therefore asks for cleanup. About doing it myself, I don't think I am knowledgeable enough on the topic, nor sure of what cleanup to do, to help now. But I could try later. However it is the nominator who is worried about the article: she/he should start working on it. -- cyclopia  speak!  16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are concerns about the notability of the topic. None of the sources is reliable per MEDRS, and so far no searches have yielded any reliable sources either. As Wikipedia defines it, this suggests a notability issue. Lesion  ( talk ) 16:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Erectile disfunction. I don't think this is notable enough without enough sources. Beerest355 Talk 14:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect, per my and others' comments at the article's talk page that support deleting or redirecting it. Like I stated there: "As the IP knows, I'm the one who started the aforementioned discussion. I agree with the IP, and this article should be deleted or, in case MEDRS-compliant sources are found for it or eventually exist to support it, redirected to the Erectile dysfunction article. The matter can be sufficiently covered in that article once, if ever, it has MEDRS-compliant sources to support it. I would suggest merging, but there is apparently nothing valid to merge. The view that the sources used for this information on Wikipedia thus far are unreliable is additionally supported by this edit and this edit by Jytdog at the Erectile dysfunction article." Flyer22 (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as creator. I have edited the article to address the concerns mentioned here. The subject is definitely notable as a meme, and it is usually called by the article title. --Editor2286 (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. The concerns are by no means addressed in the current version . "Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction or impotence is the reported inability to develop or maintain an erection caused by heavy pornography use" is clearly a medical claim. Reporting is a key aspect of medical research and causality is difficult to verify. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it was obvious that the reporting meant was men reporting their condition on internet forums, but I have edited it again to read "...is the inability to develop or maintain an erection purportedly caused by heavy pornography use." --Editor2286 (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since when is people reporting things on internet forums a reliable source for anything? The internet, Sea of Cowards that it is, allows people to say whatever they want with no requirement for any evidence or accountability. It also allows one or two people with non-mainstream opinions to appear to be many people by the creation of sock puppets. How do we know this is not a single person with religious, anti-pornography moralistic views, who is making up some stories about how pornography gave them erectile dysfunction? We simply don't, and this is why it is not reliable evidence. Some of the sources used in this stub may regard things people say on internet forums as reliable evidence that there is a issue here, and I think this rightly leads us to conclude that those sources are unreliable. Maybe some researchers might give this attention in the years to come, and maybe someone will publish a reliable secondary source citing that research. At that point, not before, wikipedia should create an article on the topic. Lesion  ( talk ) 16:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * (Forgot which user I borrowed this quote from, but it has stuck with me). Lesion  ( talk ) 17:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor does the current version address the issue: a statement of the type Y-induced X is X purportedly caused by Y is essentially meaningless. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 17:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The RS is Psych Today, which is not a MEDRS but is an RS for the fact that hundreds of men are reporting this phenomenon. It. is not self-published, and there is no requirement for RSes to not be internet based. Of course the men saying porn caused there ED have no scientific reliability on the matter, but the phenomenon of self-diagnosed ED appears to have been covered by enough RSes to be notable. I understand that the first sentence of the article would be circular if it meant that ED can really be caused by porn, but it doesn't and that's the point. It defines this thing as when someone says they got ED from porn and makes no judgement as to whether that's true. --Editor2286 (talk) 18:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * With respect, I think the line of reasoning in that rebuttal speaks for itself. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 18:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's similar to electromagnetic hypersensitivity in that it's defined by a self-diagnosed causitive effect. --Editor2286 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I would hesitate before drawing parallels with the above article, which has a wealth of formal scientific research, albeit concluding that it doesn't exist, whereas this topic has no research that has been brought forward in this discussion. Lesion  ( talk ) 20:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Unlike here, Google Scholar (for instance) lists many articles regarding electromagnetic hypersensitivity, and the WP page on the topic cites ideal sources, per WP:MEDRS (see for example ). By contrast, no serious candidate WP:MEDRS source has been produced so far for the present topic. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I only drew the parallel with respect to the definition, which is something defined by people saying their symptoms are caused by a particular (dubious) source. You (the IP) called that circular. --Editor2286 (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- if this is being presented as a medical condition, then there need to be MEDRS compliant sources. People reporting something on an internet forum does not make it a real medical condition, it's just more people stating boring opinions on the internet (**hypocrisy alert**). The blog and the Dr Oz show are definitely not suitable sources, I can't assess the book, but it's using terms like "sexual brain maps" I wonder how mainstream it is... per above comment from a reliable editor, a search for sources on PubMed, google scholar did not find anything on this supposed condition. Redirect is only appropriate if a MEDRS source can be found to support some of this content ... unless ... there is potential mention of this based upon these same sources in "society and culture" sections of erectile dysfunction and/or pornography. I generally think that WP:RS generally rather than WP:MEDRS applies to the history and society and culture sections of medical pages. This would be the appropriate way to document a "meme" and present it as it is rather than presenting it as a medical condition when it is not. I would alter the wording of such content to reflect the lack of medical sources, but this might be hard to do without breaching WP:OR. Lesion  ( talk ) 02:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If it were at ED, it'd be removed as fringe and undue. But if it is notable fringiness, which I think is demonstrated by the existing refs, then it deserves a page. --Editor2286 (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That point didn't make sense to me. If not notable for inclusion on either erectile dysfunction or pornography how can it be notable for its own page? Content which was worded and sourced appropriately and given due weight in either article (within the society and culture section) might be appropriate. I would personally phrase it like this:




 * The trouble is, you would need a source to state the lack of evidence, otherwise arguably it is OR. Might be best to wait for some formal research to appear (if indeed that ever happens) before trying to build content about this topic. Lesion  ( talk ) 20:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There are a ton of articles on fringery, because they meet GNG, but UNDUE says we keep it off the main page of a legit topic to avoid giving it undue legitimacy. It would be good if there were better sources, but I'm arguing that sufficient sources exist for GNG.  --Editor2286 (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * A page titled Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction clearly refers to the medical condition erectile dysfunction and would obviously be some some sort of a subpage of Erectile dysfunction. But without any WP:MEDRS sourcing, that is untenable. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 21:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete As noted the blog and the tv show are not reliable. This purports to be a medical condition, and the sourcing is clearly inadequate for that. what is left is half a paragraph from the book The Brain That Changes Itself, which does not meet WP:MEDRS, and does not give sufficient coverage anyway. To claim an internet meme is notable you need to show that it is of note. This is done through WP:GNG. This has not been shown, I found no reliable sources, and thus the article inherently violates WP:NPOV as it can not be made neutrally without implying that Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction exists despite no MEDRS source stating that. Symptomatic of this is that despite 5 days at AfD, the article still fails WP:MEDRS requirements and makes claims about Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction, IRWolfie- (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to erectile dysfunction. If any real reliable sources become available, can be discussed there.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, marginal sources are in use, and they have been used inappropriately to extend one author's opinion to medical causation. The notion should be removed from Wikipedia until/unless a WP:MEDRS-compliant source is available.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete and do not redirect. I completely agree with the IP nominator and with IRWolfie. This topic fails WP:MEDRS by a country mile, and thus should not have its own article here as if to imply it is a real medical condition. The only halfway-reputable-sounding reference in the article, from Psychology Today, turns out to be from a sort of advice column rather than any kind of study - and everything else I found is just laymen (no pun intended) speculating and talking in generalities. --MelanieN (talk) 20:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for looking up that book source. I think the counter argument to this point that is being made above is that this is a cultural phenomena ("meme") rather than a scientific one, and as such, naturally there are no MEDRS compliant sources, but it still may be notable as a cultural thing. I don't have a huge problem with this content as long as it is not making out that it is a real medical condition, which is what it is doing currently. Phrasing I suggested above might be better if the content is merged, and the locations would be most appropriate in the society and culture section of either pornography and/or erectile dysfunction. That is assuming that the sources meet RS. Lesion  ( talk ) 21:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you cite any sources that discuss this as an example of a 'cultural thing'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Ideally would need a source to say there is no formal scientific evidence, as I mentioned above... and such a statement might constitute OR without a supporting source. I guess I feel that if there is no evidence for something, I would rather Wikipedia say there is no evidence than not discuss it all. People will just go elsewhere to less responsible sources for advice. Appreciate what I just said probably isn't supported by any policy. Lesion  ( talk ) 22:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Is this post intended to be a reply to my question? If so, you seem to have misunderstood what I'm asking. It was suggested above that 'pornography-induced erectile dysfunction' was notable as a specific type of 'cultural thing' - an internet meme. For this so, at minimum we'd have to have a source that actually described it as such. Or if it isn't an internet meme, what sort of 'cultural thing' is it, and where are the sources that say that it is what it is? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * In answer to your original Q, no I don't have such a source. When I mentioned a cultural phenomenon rather than a scientific, I was sort of summarizing the counter argument that had already been offered, as a comment on the recent delete "votes" which used the absence of MEDRS compliant sources as rationale. The wording I posted above (in the box) I feel is an improvement on the wording we have currently, which suggests that it is a real medical condition. I would prefer such wording if the content were to be kept and moved to the society and culture sections of the parent articles, to make absolutely clear there is no formal research and the only commentary on the supposed phenomenon is non scientific. If we keep the content, we should not describe it as more than it is, and my wording better reflects what is actually going on here. Lesion  ( talk ) 23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My proposed wording also doesn't describe it as an internet meme/cultural phenomenon, so you wouldn't need a source to explicitly state that, although I agree that would be the implication. Lesion  ( talk ) 23:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you mean the "term used by some sources" proposal, you are basing your claim to notability on WP:OR. Again, you must have a source that suggests it is a notable term. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If the content is kept, and if the sources are indeed meeting RS but not MEDRS (as suggested above a few times), then this wording is better than what we have at the moment. Lesion  ( talk ) 10:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Imo, invigorating a medical internet meme by giving it currency on WP based merely on non-medically reliable sources is contrary to Wikipedia's core encyclopedic remit. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 11:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Since no sources have been found describing it as an 'internet meme', it cannot possibly be claimed that it is notable as one. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * My wording does not state that it is. Lesion  ( talk ) 14:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Then what are you suggesting the topic is notable as? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Per above discussion, it has been suggested that this topic meets GNG but the sources are not MEDRS compliant. The wording I used does not state that this topic is notable as something. Lesion  ( talk ) 21:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Some were suggesting merging this content to erectile dysfunction. I wanted to ensure that if it was merged, better wording was used. I disagree that such wording would be giving it currency when we are just stating what evidence, or in this case lack of evidence, exists. If people don't find the answer they were looking for on wikipedia, they will just go to less responsible sources. Not a particularly encyclopedic reason for wanting to keep the content. Lesion  ( talk ) 13:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article purports to be about a medical topic, but fails WP:MEDRS. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to erectile dysfunction. A single paragraph based on not so reliable sources does not justify a separate article. This stub is an obvious WP:POVFORK of Erectile dysfunction. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to erectile dysfunction. My very best wishes (talk) 03:15, 1 August 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.