Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autosadism

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. No consensus to delete. Weak consensus for merging but no consensus for a target. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Autosadism

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

No sources. Dictionary definition. Does not meet GNG. Stillwaterising (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Stillwaterising (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lack of sourcing, and a lack of obvious sources for the topic, indicate a lack of notability. The term might be a useful redirect, though I'm not entirely sure what the most appropriate target would be - Sadism, I imagine, but there may be a better fit. No use racking my brains over it. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:56, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Google Books has 394 hits for this word, many obviously relevant; Google Scholar has 36 ditto. Clearly a notable topic. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable subject on it's own in respect to psychology per [1] and [2]. Actually it seems more like a paraphilia than a BDSM topic. --Savonneux (talk) 21:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reliably sourced + notable.- Wolfkeeper 04:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. it's not a dictionary article, a dictionary article is when you have different things with the same word; here it's one thing with different words. That's allowed, and even encouraged.- Wolfkeeper 04:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge having read the source, it's just another term for a form of masochism.- Wolfkeeper 18:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge more logically this should be a sub-section of Sadism--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do we merge to sadism, masochism or algolagnia? It's not at all obvious, and indeed requires a degree of psychological expertise. Surely better just to leave it where it is? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source says its part of masochism. Sadism is when you want to hurt somebody else. If you enjoy being hurt, even by yourself, then it's masochism.- Wolfkeeper 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more sources, and Ellis, for example, says "a form of algolagnia more masochistic than sadistic". Tustin, on the other hand, classifies it with sadism. But anyway, the point is that there are now multiple sources discussing this specific topic. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as obviously notable and supported by multiple verifiable reliable sources. The lack of consensus here about whether it should be merged into sadism, masochism or algolagnia clearly demonstrates that this is a distinct concept (albeit related to all three of the others) and thus merits its own article. -- Karada (talk) 12:14, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bearing in mind it's a single paragraph, we can merge into all three without any problem at all. Having a single paragraph article when none of the sources that I've seen have more than a sentence on it seems very excessive.- Wolfkeeper 15:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And which of the three would you redirect to? You would need to leave behind a disambiguation page which looked really rather like the present article ... Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:27, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a distinct notable topic worthy of its own separate article. Although if it's to be merged I think Self-harm would be a better choice. -- œ ^™ 20:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge sources into the seperate articles masochism, Self-harm or algolagnia, where appropriate, and then delete article to avoid duplication of the existing articles. Jdrewitt (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So that readers looking up the word Autosadism get no help whatever disentangling the various terms? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its the same phenomenon, just comes under a different name, for example self-harm is also often referred to as self-injury, self-mutilation, deliberate self-harm, auto-mutilation etc. The list of different terms that can be used is endless but we should use the term that is most common. There are some new references in this article which I think would be useful if incorporated into the other articles but it would be wrong to keep this article as it is just repeating information already provided in the articles I mentioned. Jdrewitt (talk) 08:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So the proper course of action in this situation would be to merge and redirect the article rather than to delete. We don't want to delete a potentially useful search term. -- œ ^™ 10:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, agreed. Jdrewitt (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2010 (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.