Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love-shyness - Wikipedia

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 of the debate was keep. Ifnord 00:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible promotion/vanity of private theory (but not WP:OR). This reads like something out of DSM IV, but there's nothing even close in DSM, and, oddly enough, most of the non-Wikipedia-mirror links seem to tie this term to the listed author in all of the "references", one Brian G. Gilmartin. Then I go to his(?) website, love-shy.com, which prominently links this Wikipedia article, and fails to offer any evidence that anyone but him has ever written anything about this condition.

Is there any evidence that this isn't some (non-notable) psychologist's pet theory? Is the fact that it is published (the books aren't vanity press as far as I can tell) enough to make this notable even if it is?

As for me, I say no to both questions, and think this article should be deleted. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep AFAIK love-shy.com is not Gilmartin's website (whois.net has the registrant as a Mr. Rugman of the UK), and the WP article is not an issue of self-promotion/vanity. There's been a growing interest in it in recent years based on readers finding themselves well-described by the theory, probably by their having discovered it through Justin Urban's website, which dates back to 2001 at least http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.angelfire.com/ab6/polepino/toc.html and then the subsequent Yahoo! Group and other webpages. Article does need improvement though, maybe a lot of improvement. Schizombie 06:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup as the language is demotic and does not adopt the tone that is expected of WP articles.  (aeropagitica)  06:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but I also agree that it needs to be cleaned up. seinman 14:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean up per Aeropagitica.--み使い Mitsukai 16:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and possibly revert it to the state it was at before someone totally redid the page and made it look like the weird list-esque crap it's at now (why? I have no idea.) Melodia Chaconne 21:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and cleanup. Arundhati bakshi 00:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the list was added gradually, likely with what come to anyone's mind. Pavel Vozenilek 00:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Aeropagitica. Yamaguchi先生 02:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but de-listify. Stifle 16:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No modifications needed.
• Keep and clean up Edward Nygma 17:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, convert the big list into a number of sections and build the ties to more established theories. The associated mailing lists are proof that there is strong interest in the theory matturn 22:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is defintely great interest in this subject. A number of men seem to find that the theory describes their own situation very closely. As such it is an very important issue, at least it is to those men who find it relevant to their own personal situations. User:landofowen 15 February 2006
• KeepThere is nothing wrong with the article.
• Keep, but add the reasons that caused the remove proposal, as criticism about the article.

The article already states "Love-shyness is not recognized as a mental disorder by the World Health Organisation or American Psychiatric Association," but I think you're right that it should be noted that Gilmartin appears to be the only one who has published anything about it (apart from a book review by Elizabeth Rice Allgeier in the Journal of Sex Research), and that that should be mentioned somewhere closer to the top. Other people have written about it online - websites, groups, but not by way of additional studies AFAIK.Schizombie 14:20, 16 February 2006 (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.