- 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Courtship disorder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
"It's EXTREMELY sexist, and doesn't have a single bit of a verifiable source worth half a fuck.
Have the biased author's writings even been peer reviewed? or is he just some hack of a writer trying to promote his own work? This article is utterly worthless." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:8402:ABB0:25C3:1926:DA5B:D35A (talk) 18:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm completing this nomination for an IP editor, who left this message on the article's talk page: Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I did complete the AfD nomination, but I'm finding quite a bit of coverage out there and not all of it is from Freund. The coverage isn't overly heavy but it is mentioned in academic texts like this and this. I will note that it is covered in this textbook, where the author comments that there hasn't been a lot of research on the topic. This may be true, but I think that the coverage in the aforementioned books alone should be enough for the topic to pass as a whole. Now whether or not the article needs to be rewritten is another question. I don't see anything that particularly stands out, but then I'm unfamiliar with the topic so I'm going to drop a note at the psychology and sexuality WikiProjects to see if one of them can take a look. Offhand though, this looks to be a notable topic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Other. Can I suggest here that it might be most appropriate to shorten and merge it with the main article on paraphilias? I'm guessing that's a separate request thingy. As far as the anonymous user's concerns...
- 1) Is it EXTREMELY sexist? I don't think so and it looks like there was already a lengthy discussion about this in the talk section. Presumably consensus was reached that this article accurately reflects the research on this topic and is not an attempt to make social commentary, or a forum to debate, gender differences in paraphilic disorders.
- 2) Is there a single bit of a verifiable source worth half a fuck? I'd say every source was worth at least half a fuck. And I was able to verify a lot of them as I don't have to worry about paywalls thanks to working for a university hospital. I felt fairly confident about the ones that weren't available online based on their abstracts, chapter titles and/or how they were referenced in other sources.
- 3) Have the biased author's writings even been peer reviewed? Yes.
- 4) Is he just some hack of a writer trying to promote his own work? I'm wondering if Anon saw James Cantor's disclosure on the talk page and maybe overlooked that Cantor said he's the primary author of only one of the citations, in which case, my guess is that Anon is worried that Cantor is actually Freund.
- 5) Is this article is utterly worthless? I don't think it's worthless, but I do think it's a bit biased towards a hypothesis that fell out of favor during the development of the DSM-5. The term "courtship disorder" is still used, but it doesn't refer to rape anymore, which is an important and widely accepted distinction as evidenced by how it's used in the DSM-5 (2013). I also think it's worth emphasizing that in the DSM, courtship disorder isn't really an "official" name for a category of disorders (as in, it's not listed in the table of contents and doesn't have a subheading in section on paraphilic disorders). It's also never been the name of a diagnosis in either the DSM or the ICD. Within the DSM-5 chapter called Paraphilic Disorders, the phrase "courtship disorder" appears exactly two times and is used to help conceptualize the difference between paraphilias that involve pain and suffering (algolagnic disorders--sexual masochism, sexual sadism, pedophilia, fetishism and transvestism) and those that do not (courtship disorders--voyeurism, exhibitionism and frotteurism). Very intentionally, rape is not attributed to any disorder in the DSM (not even so-called "paraphilic" rape). And it gets zero hits when I ctrl F "rape" in the section of the DSM on Paraphilic Disorders. Maybe it made more sense for this concept to have its own article in 2009 when it had more buzz as some people were arguing for/against adopting it into the DSM-5. At the end of the day, the consensus was to be clear that rape is not considered a diagnosable psychiatric disorder and to give passing mention to 2 subtypes of paraphilias, courtship disorders and algolagnic disorders. Permstrump (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I forgot to sign this at first, but I guess it was some time between 14:01 and 18:49, 8 December 2015. Sorry I'm new! Permstrump (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Ditto James Cantor's comments.--Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk|Contribs▌ 19:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Notable, supported by large numbers of WP:RS, see James Cantor's Google Scholar search above. -- The Anome (talk) 11:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.