Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychological effects of adolescent sex

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. postdlf (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psychological effects of adolescent sex[edit]

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

This is a clear WP:POV fork of Adolescent sexuality in the United States, and it exists only to list all the perceived negative aspects of adolescent sexuality. Before it was blanked for WP:NPOV violations, this was the only content, and I do not see how the scope allows for any rebuttals. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't approve of this 53+K article being essentially blanked before being hauled to AfD. Trout applied as appropriate. It is or was, however, a clear POV fork. Carrite (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I stubbed it in lieu of nominating for deletion, in case it would be possible to restart the article in a NPOV manner. If you would prefer that it be unstubbed while awaiting deletion, that would be fine by me. I thought stubbing would be a less-invasive, less-processual way of getting to that end. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would be a huge waste of editors' time if the person nominating every article for deletion blanked it as was done to this one (except for a brief summary). There is a notice right in the AFD template and in the guide to deletion which says not to blank the article (unless it is a copyright violation, which has not been alleged here). Therefore I will try and restore it to an earlier version which includes the text and references which people are deciding the fate of here, so they can make informed decisions without a) uncritically accepting what the nominator and previous editors have said here in AFD, or b) digging through the article's edit history. Edison (talk) 22:53, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Really, it would behoove you to look at the article history before making an accusation. I stubbed it BEFORE anyone nominated it for deletion. See this diff. My goal was to create an NPOV stub available for restart if someone wanted to try. I have no objection to deleting it, but accusing me of doing something wrong or against policy is ludicrous. "On occasion, an article may have severe problems that require much of its content to be removed. This may be done in response to an article that is heavily biased, either for or against its subject; an article that has some verifiable material but is otherwise full of original research; in response to an OTRS complaint; or a variety of other reasons." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Ugh. I warned NbSB that his edits could result in this kind of drama. He did not know that I was going to nominate the article for deletion, and his edits were made in good faith. As he has pointed out, stubbing the article is well within guidelines, and there is no conspiracy here. Now that we've had our bit of drama, I hope that we can move on and get back to the topic at hand. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry for the mistaken criticism, which I have struck. There had been discussion of the stubbing and impending AFD nom on the talk page of a different article than the one being discussed here, but it took some digging to find it, and a reference to it on the talk page of the present article would have been helpful, as context, or it could have been referred to on this page You as nominator were aware of possible issues with AFD of a blanked article. It would have been better to restore it before nominating it. Edison (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - POV fork, if it can't be restarted there then it should be deleted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read much of the long version. This is among the worst kinds of POV pushing and cherry-picking of sources, the kind that is done for a "good cause" Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:05, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hopeless POV pushing in any of its prior forms. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete POV fork - probably inherently so under this title. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:38, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and close per WP:SNOW. I can see what the creator was trying to do but WP isn't the place for that. Stalwart111 12:28, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:45, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Adolescent sexuality in the United States, though I'm not sure affects are confined merely to the U.S. Student7 (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2013 (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.