Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary Psychological and Biological Explanations for Prostitution

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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. Irrespective of the intervening move to draft space.  Sandstein  12:36, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary Psychological and Biological Explanations for Prostitution

edit
Evolutionary Psychological and Biological Explanations for Prostitution (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)

No evidence that this topic has any notability. It appears to be original research. The references all support individual ideas or concepts and are (exclusively?) primary sources. This reads like an undergraduate essay. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   11:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per this suggestion by the nominator and guideance at WP:EDITATAFD, I'm leaving this notice to record that I've moved Evolutionary Psychological and Biological Explanations for Prostitution to Draft:Evolutionary psychological and biological explanations for prostitution (correcting the capitalisation of the title). --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a web host. If the topic isn't notable, why would we keep a draft? I appreciate that it may be disheartening to the students to see their work deleted but ultimately if that work is not improving the encyclopaedia it's not something we can retain. They can always save a local copy to work on if it's a requirement of their course.
On that note, I couldn't find a course page for this assignment, which if I understand correctly is required by Wikipedia:Student assignments for precisely this kind of situation. Joe Roe (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're confused about several things. Neither WP:WEBHOST nor WP:UPNOT forbids editors from using their userspace to work on articles that may eventually become notable. Please check those two guidelines and try to find where they support your assertion. Wikipedia:Deletion policy #Incubation is the policy that supports my request. Please explain why that should not apply to these students' good-faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Being unnecessarily pedantic when dealing with new editors is a sure-fire recipe for putting them off, and then we wonder why the number of editors is declining.
You've also confused the UK with the USA. There is no requirement for any UK course to use a course page. How do you think we could enforce any such requirement on an educational institution? Surely it is far better to offer the facility to schools, colleges and universities and work with them if they take it up, than to make demands about how they interact with "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? --RexxS (talk) 18:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I interpret WP:WEBHOST as precluding us from using draftspace to host student essays that will never be viable articles in order to avoid "disrupting" their coursework. As the policy you linked states, incubation in draft or userspace is for articles on viable subjects that are lacking in quality. There is no reason to work on a draft article for a topic that isn't suitable for inclusion regardless of quality (i.e. they aren't notable) and literally any topic may be notable in the future.
I can't see anything in Wikipedia:Student assignments that would mark it as US-specific advice. "Each assignment should have a course page, so editors and ambassadors can direct constructive feedback to the right place.". I don't understand how there could be any confusion there. It is of course a recommendation not a demand, but I think this situation illustrates perfectly why it is sound advice. The students who wrote this article have chosen a subject which, while a fine subject for an essay, is not an appropriate Wikipedia article. If the article had been properly marked as being part of an educational assignment with a course page, we could have engaged with the students and their instructor about this sooner, rather than finding ourselves in the unfortunate situation of them having already written an article that we will probably end up deleting. Joe Roe (talk) 18:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You make the mistake of assuming that a week-old article "will never be [a] viable article". The topic has potential for study as shown by PMID 8483982, ISBN 9781573922296, ISBN 9780195325188, etc. There is absolutely no reason to assume that it can never be notable. Your interpretation of WEBHOST flies in the face of common practice on Wikipedia as it would raise the bar for notability in user-space or draft-space to the same as for main-space. In your version of Wikipedia, there would be no use for draft-space at all, and nobody would be able to work on fledgling articles in user-space without first meeting GNG. I disagree that the topic is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article - a Google search for "explanations for prostitution" yields 16,700 results and there will be enough sourcing related to evolutionary psychology and biology among that lot to create at least a stub/start article. It's instructive to examine Prostitution #Socio-economic issues, to see how poorly sourced that is, compared to the standards you're demanding just to return this article to user-space.
Wikipedia:Student assignments is an essay, not WP:PAG. Have a look at Wikipedia:Course pages (another essay) and spot the "those participating in the U.S., Canada, and other Wikipedia Education Programs as well as independent courses." There's no disagreement about it being sound advice, but if a course instructor chooses not to follow it, it's not our place to punish the students who really are trying to add useful content. The article has only been on Wiki for one week. You are a host at the Teahouse, so I assume you have at least basic skills in engaging with new editors. You are most welcome to engage with the students involved right now, if you feel so strongly that your engagement with them will be beneficial to them or to the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am indeed a host at the Teahouse, and an AfC reviewer, and a new page patroller, and otherwise spend a significant chunk of my time here trying to make things easier for new editors, as well as working in higher education myself – so if you're looking for a bitey elitist boogeyman I'll respectfully ask you to look elsewhere. I'm not "punishing" the editors of this article or questioning their good faith, but I think we all know that this is original research and it would be disingenuous to pretend that Wikipedia will ever have a place for that. Regardless of whether you think this may be a viable field of study in the future (we'll have to agree to disagree on that), the fact is that that research has not been done, so we have nothing to write about.
I'm aware that Wikipedia:Student assignments is not a policy or a guideline and don't believe I referred to it as such. You left out the first part of that sentence from Wikipedia:Course pages: "All assignments should use a course page, including [the US]" If the coordinator of this course really refused to abide by that recommendation then of course there's nothing we can do about it. However to put it bluntly, if they simply weren't made aware of it, that's an oversight on your part as the 'ambassador' for this course. I think it would be more productive to admit that and try to correct it in future rather than defensively asking the community to bend its usual standards and processes to accommodate the mistake. That ship has sailed. Joe Roe (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an ambassador for this or any other course and have no affiliation with it, so you can quit trying to scapegoat my interest here. I'm retired after a lifetime of working in schools, FE and HE and I'm now involved in training new editors and keen to see Wikipedia used within education. So I'm not impressed with your claim to be "trying to make things easier for new editors" when your actions here are easily identified as an attempt to punish a student for making the mistake of moving a draft into main-space too soon. If you wish to avoid being viewed as a "bitey elitist boogeyman", you'll find it is best not to behave like one. There is no need to delete contributions when they can be returned to user/draft space when an editor wishes to continue working on them. Do you really think that deleting this article would make things easier for the student? The sources indicate that there's enough to write about to make an article, although I agree that the students involved have synthesised far too much of the content as it is presently written.
You claim that "a course page for this assignment ... is required by Wikipedia:Student assignments" and I told you that it's not a policy or guideline. Can't you work out that I'm explaining why any such "requirement" carries no weight? It would have to be a policy or guideline for the word "required" to have any meaning on Wikipedia. To be equally blunt, what would be productive would be for you to apologise for jumping to wrong conclusions, and start getting involved in actually helping new editors rather than paying lip-service to it. --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look, my position is simple. In my opinion this topic is not notable and if that is also the consensus of this AfD then we shouldn't continue to host it just to accommodate a poorly executed coursework assignment. The information page Wikipedia:Student assignments requires (or recommends, whatever you prefer) that such assignments have a course page and you, as the only established editor who has mentioned any knowledge or affiliation of this course ("On behalf of WMUK, I've volunteered to answer questions that the students may have about Wikipedia editing."), might have averted that situation by putting that in place beforehand, rather than having to go on the defensive afterwards. Beyond that I really don't appreciate the repeated ad hominems and distortions, and don't really see the point of continuing this discussion. Joe Roe (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Look, my position is equally simple. In my opinion this topic is notable, and at some point in the future there will an article on the topic or one very close to it. If that is the case, then there is no harm done in returning it user/draft space where it could be worked on until it meets GNG. Conversely, the harm is real to the new editor who loses work through sheer pigheadedness by other, more experienced editors, who could be more sympathetic to what it's like to be a new editor. Let me be completely clear here, your insinuations that I am in any way involved with the way the course is run are complete bullshit. Why didn't you "put that in place beforehand" - whatever "that" is - if you feel it's so essential? I'm no more involved in that course than you are, and have only reported its existence as a courtesy after I was made aware of it. You pretend to be concerned about new editors, so why don't you follow your own advice and at least offer to help answer the students' questions as I have? Frankly I don't give a flying fuck what hypocrites appreciate, but at least we can agree that there's no point in continuing the discussion. --RexxS (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reason why you can't or won't move it to Draft space? Nothing in this discussion is inhibiting that action.  Velella  Velella Talk   06:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more than happy to see it moved back into draft space, but WP:EDITATAFD advises against it: "Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion (both during the discussion and when closing using semi-automated closing scripts). If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator)." Nevertheless, it doesn't forbid it, so I've done the move. Thank you. --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. As far as I can tell none of the human evolution/psychology references are explanations of prostitution and none of the prostitution references are based on evolutionary psychology, making this a clear case of WP:SYNTH. Based on a quick Google Scholar search evolutionary psychologists have occasionally used observational studies of prostitution to discuss mate choice but I couldn't find a literature on EP explanations of prostitution specifically. Some of the material from the "in animals" section might be salvaged for Prostitution among animals. Joe Roe (talk) 11:09, 28 November 2016 (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/Evolutionary_Psychological_and_Biological_Explanations_for_Prostitution&oldid=1071788370"