Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 as a clear circumvention of the result of the previous AfD. The proper forum to contest an AfD result is WP:DRV; one doesn't just re-create the article at a slightly different title. That said, and putting aside the !votes of SPAs who appear to have been led here by a posting on an external site, there is clear consensus that this article should not exist. Deor (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD)

[edit]
Post SSRI Sexual Dysfunction (PSSD) (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)

Identical to the article redirected in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction, with the exception of the new "Controversy" section which is actually discussing the removal of the original article rather than the subject Jac16888 Talk 22:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a useful redirect. Per the previous consensus, this article should not have been created. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom B14709 (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article extensively cited. COI questions in the previous AFD not satisfactorily answered, massive deletions of material in Isotretinoin, deletion of all material from the Post-Finasteride Syndrome article. Time to take a closer look at this.Anarchangel (talk) 03:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original author has now posted a response which addresses the criticisms of the article. It can be found at http://wp.rxisk.org/wikipedia-editor-inserts-foot-in-mouth/ Hhk89 23:36, 8 July 2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hhk89 (talk • contribs)
  • This article on Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction is well-documented, balanced and relevant to a real problem. It is true there’s controversy in the medical profession as to whether this is a real phenomenon and/or how widespread it is, but those issues are soberly dealt with. I wish this information had been available to me when I was first given SSRI’s. At that time the occurrence of any sexual side effects whatsoever was confidently estimated at 5%. Today it’s widely acknowledged to be 50% or higher, and their orgasm-delaying properties are accepted and used by doctors trying to treat premature ejaculation. While the majority of these problems clear up once people come off the drug, this is not true for a significant minority. There seems to be a double standard at Wikipedia with regard to “scientific rigor”, based on the topic or viewpoint of the article. As a workers’ compensation professional in Chicago, I would point to these two Wikipedia articles as genuinely problematic :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_Lipov, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_cord_stimulator, One is an unabashed and unsupported “puff piece” for a local doctor and his as-yet unproven (but lucrative) stellate ganglion block therapies. The other is an excessively optimistic account of spinal stimulator use for pain post-spinal surgery. Everyone in this field knows there are major questions as to the efficacy of this device; among my firm’s clients we’ve seen twice as many total failures as modest successes – but that issue is completely glossed over. Yet Wikipedia offers only a mild caution as to the “tone or style” of the Lipov article, and finds the highly promotional spine-stimulator article to be above criticism. Please retain the PSSD article. Sincerely, Johanna Ryan, Chicago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.86.72.187 (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 10:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This should have been deleted without discussion because it is a copy of Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction, which was converted to a redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. @Johanna Ryan, please consider making a Wikipedia account to fully participate in the conversation. Hhk89, the content in that link is completely beyond what is considered in making decisions for deletion here. Wikipedia has inclusion criteria and if this concept meets it, then there is no reason to provide a long essay of that sort. I appreciate the intent but it might have been better just to ask someone about the inclusion criteria if they were unclear. Evaluation of inclusion suitability is supposed to be decided in a few minutes, and although again, I appreciate that essay, its content seems unrelated to how Wikipedia judges inclusion and exclusion of concepts. I fail to understand the arguments for keeping this. This article does not meet WP:GNG and for that reason I vote delete. I regret that I cannot parse all the many sources but the ones I checked were inappropriate and ought to be deleted, and I expect the author does not understand what is acceptable on Wikipedia. Please ask questions at WP:MED if any of you really want to learn to be part of the community here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:08, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical delete I would vote keep for the original article (Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction) because I think the reasoning in the AfD was rather odd ("the article is based on a dozen of cases" - which is simply not true) and the article had plenty of PubMed and journal sources. However, this article is just a new copy of the deleted one. Thus this should be a technical delete, and open a WP:DELREV on the old one for this discussion. --Pudeo' 03:49, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The original author has now posted a response which addresses the criticisms of the article. It can be found at http://wp.rxisk.org/wikipedia-editor-inserts-foot-in-mouth/ Hhk89 23:36, 8 July 2014. In addition there is a new paper describing this condition at http://davidhealy.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2014-Hogan-SSRIs-and-PSSD.pdf. In the course of my work I have become aware of this condition and know it to be real and as described in this article. In addition I work with other professionals including psychiatrists and pharmacists who are also aware of the condition. Organisations like MIND are aware and deeply concerned about the condition. I am deeply concerned that vested interests may come into play and prevent the truth being spoken clearly. In addition I am aware of the help to those who suffer from PSSD that comes from being able to refer to Wikipedia. 23:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realityandtruth (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction and Blue Rasberry's evaluation (and might qualify for WP:CSD#G4). Deli nk (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical Delete per Pudeo. I'm not convinced the sourcing is solid but I haven't spent a lot of time on it because of the copypasta from the previous AFD SPACKlick (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Post_SSRI_Sexual_Dysfunction_(PSSD)&oldid=1138247910"