Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love-shyness (2nd nomination)

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. Zad68 16:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love-shyness[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Scratching my head what to do here. Feasibly, could be some mention at shyness or in some medical or psychological condition it can be equated to. In the absence of this, however, I feel it has no place here as it is currently described as some form or legitimate stand-alone psychological condition or syndrome. For this it would optimally need to be categorised (or even mentioned) in ICD10 or DSM 5, or failing that receive some sort of detailed discussion in a secondary source. If these can be provided, then this deletion debate can be reconsidered. Am surprised here that I actually agree with A Man In Black. Anyway, discuss away. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge to shyness~~. The last AFD was in 2006, before WP:MEDRS or requirements for reliable medical sources. This is an article about a concept furthered by one person, one book, one study: a vanity entry, based on primary sources, and in the seven years since its last AFD, the concept still has gained no traction in medical literature. There is *one* entry in PubMed: Gilmartin's own PMID 3681636 from 1987. Eliminate the WP:UNDUE emphasis on one book and one person's primary research, that has gained no traction, and merge the basic definition to shyness; there is no such identifiable condition, and Wikipedia is not the love-shyness webhost. Perhaps in 2006 we wrote vanity entries on alleged medical conditions to support one person's book; we shouldn't be doing that anymore. (By the way, how did this article stand for seven years without a single page number to back these claims? Not one book citation includes a page number for verification.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a combination of topic obscurity and poor linking from other articles... Lesion (talk) 02:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per subsequent Casliber analysis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a recognised entity, fails WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The article's main editor concedes that the concept is controversial.[1] Any salvageable content should be merged with shyness. JFW | T@lk 07:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not only one book, and the books that exist don't treat this as an aspect of shyness. There are plenty of books that mention Gilmartin's work, in the fields of educational and social psychology. The concept clearly has gained traction. These books treat this as an aspect of bullying. Here are just a few of the books that aren't written by Gilmartin that cite his research:
- ISBN 9781578867998, pp. 129–130
- ISBN 9780199721979, pp. 77–78 (Oxford University Press, author is a social psychologist and a professor at Brunel University)
- ISBN 9781846423239, p. 110 (author is a psychologist and a professor at the University of South Australia)
- ISBN 9780864314475, p. 59 (by professor Rigby again)
Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncle G: do those sources specifically use the term "love-shyness"? Lesion (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first one uses the term in inverted commas (which can be interpreted I guess in a number of ways) - mentions a 1987 study where loveshy people had a higher incidence of being bullied. So a somewhat oblique reference and more interested in the link to bullying rather than the reified phenomenon possibly. More to come. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the second book, but the book is about homophobic bullying, while the research was on heterosexual men. So strikes me as oblique - also really restricted to 1987 study (like first ref) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the page in the third book, but the text link indicates it refers to the 1987 study (again) WRT bullying. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

fourth is same use of same material as third. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately the interest appears to be in bullying and a form of social inhibition that Gilmartin calls "loveshy" and reifies in the process. I've just read the original 1987 paper and find alot of it pretty arbitrary as to where he has drawn lines in defining this. It also lacks links to psychiatric diagnoses. But back to the point, if the interest is overwhelmingly in the study, then we'd be referencing the secondary source noting the link and hence omitting specific mention of a single study. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - essentially fails as per WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Undue, fringe, OR. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:34, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - could merge a bit with Shyness but as others have noted, this is a WP:FRINGE concept promoted by a single author. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment Reasons for nomination fail to pass muster. The article contains references from multiple sources This is absolutely not original reasearch, and calling it fringe is ludicrous, and inconsistent with discussions on other article talk pages of what constitutes "fringe." If it is mentioned in books published by oxford univeristy press, I think that makes shoots down any claims of WP:MEDRS. Let's not waste time deleting this as it likely will be restored again as more information about it continues to be published. There are dozens of articles that were deleted for the same reasons only to later be recreated when the topic became too mainstream to ignore--173.75.214.124 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original papers are more than 25 years old; if the concept was going to gain any traction, it would have by now. (Noting that most of the spamming of this topic into unrelated articles has come from mobile phone edits.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@173.75.214.124: - also, the references are mainly to the single 1987 study and focus on the bullying link - the term (which is essentially a neologism) is only referred to peripherally. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-- Based on Cas Liber's assessment of the other sources above, I do not think we have WP:GNG or WP:MEDRS (no recent, independent secondary or tertiary sources discussing the topic in depth). With this same reasoning we should not have this content merged to any other page either. Lesion (talk) 02:52, 2 January 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.