Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction - Knowledge

Source đź“ť

1046:-- if this is being presented as a medical condition, then there need to be MEDRS compliant sources. People reporting something on an internet forum does not make it a real medical condition, it's just more people stating boring opinions on the internet (**hypocrisy alert**). The blog and the Dr Oz show are definitely not suitable sources, I can't assess the book, but it's using terms like "sexual brain maps" I wonder how mainstream it is... per above comment from a reliable editor, a search for sources on PubMed, google scholar did not find anything on this supposed condition. Redirect is only appropriate if a MEDRS source can be found to support some of this content ... unless ... there is potential mention of this based upon these same sources in "society and culture" sections of 780:
anti-pornography moralistic views, who is making up some stories about how pornography gave them erectile dysfunction? We simply don't, and this is why it is not reliable evidence. Some of the sources used in this stub may regard things people say on internet forums as reliable evidence that there is a issue here, and I think this rightly leads us to conclude that those sources are unreliable. Maybe some researchers might give this attention in the years to come, and maybe someone will publish a reliable secondary source citing that research. At that point, not before, wikipedia should create an article on the topic.
1412:
rationale. The wording I posted above (in the box) I feel is an improvement on the wording we have currently, which suggests that it is a real medical condition. I would prefer such wording if the content were to be kept and moved to the society and culture sections of the parent articles, to make absolutely clear there is no formal research and the only commentary on the supposed phenomenon is non scientific. If we keep the content, we should not describe it as more than it is, and my wording better reflects what is actually going on here.
667:. I agree with the IP, and this article should be deleted or, in case MEDRS-compliant sources are found for it or eventually exist to support it, redirected to the Erectile dysfunction article. The matter can be sufficiently covered in that article once, if ever, it has MEDRS-compliant sources to support it. I would suggest merging, but there is apparently nothing valid to merge. The view that the sources used for this information on Knowledge thus far are unreliable is additionally supported by 1327:
don't have a huge problem with this content as long as it is not making out that it is a real medical condition, which is what it is doing currently. Phrasing I suggested above might be better if the content is merged, and the locations would be most appropriate in the society and culture section of either pornography and/or erectile dysfunction. That is assuming that the sources meet RS.
903:
matter, but the phenomenon of self-diagnosed ED appears to have been covered by enough RSes to be notable. I understand that the first sentence of the article would be circular if it meant that ED can really be caused by porn, but it doesn't and that's the point. It defines this thing as when someone says they got ED from porn and makes no judgement as to whether that's true. --
1123:"Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction" is a term used by some sources to refer to a supposed phenomena informally reported by individuals in internet forums. These individuals claimed that they experienced erectile problems as a result of heavy pornography use. However, there is no credible evidence for the existence of such a disorder. 1307:
by a country mile, and thus should not have its own article here as if to imply it is a real medical condition. The only halfway-reputable-sounding reference in the article, from Psychology Today, turns out to be from a sort of advice column rather than any kind of study - and everything else I found
1062:
applies to the history and society and culture sections of medical pages. This would be the appropriate way to document a "meme" and present it as it is rather than presenting it as a medical condition when it is not. I would alter the wording of such content to reflect the lack of medical sources,
1411:
In answer to your original Q, no I don't have such a source. When I mentioned a cultural phenomenon rather than a scientific, I was sort of summarizing the counter argument that had already been offered, as a comment on the recent delete "votes" which used the absence of MEDRS compliant sources as
1326:
Thank you for looking up that book source. I think the counter argument to this point that is being made above is that this is a cultural phenomena ("meme") rather than a scientific one, and as such, naturally there are no MEDRS compliant sources, but it still may be notable as a cultural thing. I
1592:
Some were suggesting merging this content to erectile dysfunction. I wanted to ensure that if it was merged, better wording was used. I disagree that such wording would be giving it currency when we are just stating what evidence, or in this case lack of evidence, exists. If people don't find the
1363:
Ideally would need a source to say there is no formal scientific evidence, as I mentioned above... and such a statement might constitute OR without a supporting source. I guess I feel that if there is no evidence for something, I would rather Knowledge say there is no evidence than not discuss it
902:
The RS is Psych Today, which is not a MEDRS but is an RS for the fact that hundreds of men are reporting this phenomenon. It. is not self-published, and there is no requirement for RSes to not be internet based. Of course the men saying porn caused there ED have no scientific reliability on the
1107:
That point didn't make sense to me. If not notable for inclusion on either erectile dysfunction or pornography how can it be notable for its own page? Content which was worded and sourced appropriately and given due weight in either article (within the society and culture section) might be
779:
that it is, allows people to say whatever they want with no requirement for any evidence or accountability. It also allows one or two people with non-mainstream opinions to appear to be many people by the creation of sock puppets. How do we know this is not a single person with religious,
292:
by leaps and bounds. Perhaps the title and or wording should be changed to indicate it is not a medically established fact. Broadening the topic may be helpful. Other forms of sexual dysfunction are also associated (maybe not scientificially, but still) with excessive porn viewing.
1161:
There are a ton of articles on fringery, because they meet GNG, but UNDUE says we keep it off the main page of a legit topic to avoid giving it undue legitimacy. It would be good if there were better sources, but I'm arguing that sufficient sources exist for GNG.
584:
There is no need to show it. None of the concerns are about notability or intrinsic unsuitability of the topic, the nomination therefore asks for cleanup. About doing it myself, I don't think I am knowledgeable enough on the topic, nor sure of
953:
I would hesitate before drawing parallels with the above article, which has a wealth of formal scientific research, albeit concluding that it doesn't exist, whereas this topic has no research that has been brought forward in this discussion.
742:
I think it was obvious that the reporting meant was men reporting their condition on internet forums, but I have edited it again to read "...is the inability to develop or maintain an erection purportedly caused by heavy pornography use."
168: 1138:
The trouble is, you would need a source to state the lack of evidence, otherwise arguably it is OR. Might be best to wait for some formal research to appear (if indeed that ever happens) before trying to build content about this topic.
1386:
Is this post intended to be a reply to my question? If so, you seem to have misunderstood what I'm asking. It was suggested above that 'pornography-induced erectile dysfunction' was notable as a specific type of 'cultural thing' - an
606:
There are concerns about the notability of the topic. None of the sources is reliable per MEDRS, and so far no searches have yielded any reliable sources either. As Knowledge defines it, this suggests a notability issue.
1227:
as it can not be made neutrally without implying that Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction exists despite no MEDRS source stating that. Symptomatic of this is that despite 5 days at AfD, the article still fails
1029:
I only drew the parallel with respect to the definition, which is something defined by people saying their symptoms are caused by a particular (dubious) source. You (the IP) called that circular. --
162: 94: 89: 451: 98: 1434:
My proposed wording also doesn't describe it as an internet meme/cultural phenomenon, so you wouldn't need a source to explicitly state that, although I agree that would be the implication.
471: 1211:
As noted the blog and the tv show are not reliable. This purports to be a medical condition, and the sourcing is clearly inadequate for that. what is left is half a paragraph from the book
81: 1562:
Per above discussion, it has been suggested that this topic meets GNG but the sources are not MEDRS compliant. The wording I used does not state that this topic is notable as something.
1275:, marginal sources are in use, and they have been used inappropriately to extend one author's opinion to medical causation. The notion should be removed from Knowledge until/unless a 1470:
If the content is kept, and if the sources are indeed meeting RS but not MEDRS (as suggested above a few times), then this wording is better than what we have at the moment.
696:
as creator. I have edited the article to address the concerns mentioned here. The subject is definitely notable as a meme, and it is usually called by the article title. --
1456:
If you mean the "term used by some sources" proposal, you are basing your claim to notability on WP:OR. Again, you must have a source that suggests it is a notable term.
128: 246:, the topic does not appear notable enough for a stand-alone article. If reliable medical sources can be produced on the topic, the information could be added into the 1093:
If it were at ED, it'd be removed as fringe and undue. But if it is notable fringiness, which I think is demonstrated by the existing refs, then it deserves a page. --
121: 663:, per my and others' comments at the article's talk page that support deleting or redirecting it. Like I stated there: "As the IP knows, I'm the one who started the 431: 1593:
answer they were looking for on wikipedia, they will just go to less responsible sources. Not a particularly encyclopedic reason for wanting to keep the content.
229: 411: 357:
Could you demonstrate how by editing the page? I don't see any unambiguous way of doing that: the page title itself clearly implies a clinical condition—
183: 1678: 589:
cleanup to do, to help now. But I could try later. However it is the nominator who is worried about the article: she/he should start working on it. --
150: 718:"Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction or impotence is the reported inability to develop or maintain an erection caused by heavy pornography use" 1364:
all. People will just go elsewhere to less responsible sources for advice. Appreciate what I just said probably isn't supported by any policy.
1219:, and does not give sufficient coverage anyway. To claim an internet meme is notable you need to show that it is of note. This is done through 1703: 1682: 1653: 1610: 1579: 1557: 1543: 1521: 1505: 1487: 1465: 1451: 1429: 1404: 1381: 1358: 1344: 1317: 1291: 1267: 1241: 1193: 1171: 1156: 1102: 1084: 1038: 1002: 971: 948: 930: 912: 893: 866: 797: 752: 737: 705: 688: 655: 624: 601: 579: 561: 523: 483: 463: 443: 423: 399: 370: 352: 327: 302: 280: 63: 1674: 1497: 1185: 994: 922: 885: 729: 391: 362: 319: 252: 144: 140: 408: 199: 85: 1395:. Or if it isn't an internet meme, what sort of 'cultural thing' is it, and where are the sources that say that it is what it is? 936: 190: 1512:
Since no sources have been found describing it as an 'internet meme', it cannot possibly be claimed that it is notable as one.
17: 1177: 77: 69: 542: 505: 274: 1699: 1212: 819: 813: 226: 156: 1665:. A single paragraph based on not so reliable sources does not justify a separate article. This stub is an obvious 1180:
clearly refers to the medical condition erectile dysfunction and would obviously be some some sort of a subpage of
236: 1722: 40: 318:. Knowledge cannot just start inventing clinical conditions in this way, based on individual opinion and memes. 1695: 1501: 1189: 998: 926: 889: 733: 395: 366: 323: 256: 57: 262:
My posting this should not be construed as a !vote or commentary on the merits or demerits of this debate. —/
1649: 1553: 1517: 1461: 1400: 1354: 1287: 1263: 983:
Unlike here, Google Scholar (for instance) lists many articles regarding electromagnetic hypersensitivity
725: 1718: 36: 1691: 1670: 1662: 1252: 1181: 1167: 1098: 1047: 1034: 993:). By contrast, no serious candidate WP:MEDRS source has been produced so far for the present topic. 944: 908: 748: 701: 651: 641: 509: 387: 358: 341: 247: 206: 1237: 575: 263: 176: 53: 1303:
and do not redirect. I completely agree with the IP nominator and with IRWolfie. This topic fails
1594: 1563: 1527: 1471: 1435: 1413: 1365: 1328: 1313: 1223:. This has not been shown, I found no reliable sources, and thus the article inherently violates 1140: 1068: 978: 955: 881: 850: 781: 608: 599: 559: 536: 499: 348: 298: 239: 218: 1666: 1645: 1549: 1513: 1457: 1396: 1350: 1280: 1256: 684: 479: 459: 439: 419: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1717:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1602: 1571: 1535: 1479: 1443: 1421: 1373: 1336: 1148: 1076: 963: 858: 789: 616: 1641: 1493: 1304: 1276: 1229: 1216: 1163: 1094: 1059: 1030: 987: 940: 904: 827: 744: 721: 697: 645: 232: 222: 210: 1233: 1224: 991: 984: 776: 571: 519: 213:. I have been unable to find any recent ones on PubMed. While I do not have access to 1492:
Imo, invigorating a medical internet meme by giving it currency on WP based merely on
1388: 1309: 1220: 592: 552: 546: 532: 495: 344: 315: 294: 289: 1064: 1055: 680: 475: 455: 435: 415: 217:, potential sources I've examined on GoogleScholar and Google Books have all been 115: 1349:
Can you cite any sources that discuss this as an example of a 'cultural thing'?
1051: 921:
With respect, I think the line of reasoning in that rebuttal speaks for itself.
676: 771:
Since when is people reporting things on internet forums a reliable source for
1232:
requirements and makes claims about Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction,
1308:
is just laymen (no pun intended) speculating and talking in generalities. --
514: 1255:. If any real reliable sources become available, can be discussed there. 225:. Additionally, the current title does not appear on either GoogleScholar 214: 847:
Forgot which user I borrowed this quote from, but it has stuck with me)
311: 1391:. For this so, at minimum we'd have to have a source that actually 570:
Then do it. Clean the article! Show it can be done through action,
545:) above. All concerns of nom can be solved by editing, and as such 1711:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
549:. If the title is misleading, it can be moved to a new title. -- 644:. I don't think this is notable enough without enough sources. 1640:. The article purports to be about a medical topic, but fails 810: 713:
The concerns are by no means addressed in the current version
939:
in that it's defined by a self-diagnosed causitive effect. --
452:
list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
340:
I don't disagree, but that can be addressed via editing.
1184:. But without any WP:MEDRS sourcing, that is untenable. 986:, and the WP page on the topic cites ideal sources, per 472:
list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions
288:. It may not be medically reliable, but the meme passes 874: 714: 672: 668: 664: 243: 111: 107: 103: 1548:
Then what are you suggesting the topic is notable as?
175: 1496:
is contrary to Knowledge's core encyclopedic remit.
1108:
appropriate. I would personally phrase it like this:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1725:). No further edits should be made to this page. 1121: 1063:but this might be hard to do without breaching 240:WT:MED#Pornography-induced_erectile_dysfunction 198:Creating for an IP user. Reasoning copied from 432:list of Medicine-related deletion discussions 189: 8: 470:Note: This debate has been included in the 450:Note: This debate has been included in the 430:Note: This debate has been included in the 876:address the issue: a statement of the type 720:is clearly a medical claim. Reporting is a 547:deletion policy requires article to be kept 469: 449: 429: 310:. The page clearly sets out to describe a 1178:Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction 878:Y-induced X is X purportedly caused by Y 407:Note: This debate has been added to the 78:Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction 70:Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction 1526:My wording does not state that it is. 679:at the Erectile dysfunction article." 817:The internet is an unreliable source 724:of medical research and causality is 7: 231:(though there are several hundred 24: 1279:-compliant source is available. 937:electromagnetic hypersensitivity 209:, is not currently supported by 1675:Someone not using his real name 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 1494:non-medically reliable sources 205:This page on a medical topic, 1: 1213:The Brain That Changes Itself 873:Nor does the current version 1671:Erectile dysfunction#Causes 259:) 22:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC) 1742: 1704:03:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC) 64:07:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC) 1683:12:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 1654:21:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1611:13:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 1580:21:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 1558:15:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 1544:14:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 1522:14:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 1506:11:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 1488:10:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 1466:23:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1452:23:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1430:23:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1405:22:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1382:22:40, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1359:22:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1345:21:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1318:20:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1292:14:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC) 1268:14:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1242:11:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1194:21:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1172:21:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1157:20:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1103:19:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1085:02:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1054:. I generally think that 1039:21:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 1003:20:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 972:20:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 949:20:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 931:18:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 913:18:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 894:17:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 867:17:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 824: 798:16:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 753:14:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 738:10:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 706:02:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 689:00:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 665:aforementioned discussion 656:14:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC) 625:16:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 602:16:04, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 580:11:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC) 562:15:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC) 524:02:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC) 484:23:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 464:23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 444:23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 424:23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 400:21:16, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 371:21:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 353:21:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 328:21:15, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 303:20:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 281:20:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC) 1714:Please do not modify it. 211:reliable medical sources 32:Please do not modify it. 409:WikiProject Pornography 1215:, which does not meet 1125: 1058:generally rather than 261: 203: 1692:erectile dysfunction 1663:erectile dysfunction 1393:described it as such 1253:erectile dysfunction 1182:Erectile dysfunction 1048:erectile dysfunction 642:Erectile disfunction 388:Erectile dysfunction 359:erectile dysfunction 248:Erectile dysfunction 238:). Per consensus at 207:erectile dysfunction 1696:My very best wishes 494:, essentially per 312:clinical condition 235:entries on Google 48:The result was 990:(see for example 982: 834: 833: 654: 486: 466: 446: 412:list of deletions 277: 269: 1733: 1716: 1607: 1599: 1576: 1568: 1540: 1532: 1484: 1476: 1448: 1440: 1426: 1418: 1378: 1370: 1341: 1333: 1284: 1260: 1153: 1145: 1081: 1073: 976: 968: 960: 935:It's similar to 863: 855: 830: 811: 794: 786: 775:? The internet, 650: 648: 621: 613: 595: 555: 508:), above. Also, 426: 386:and redirect to 273: 267: 228:or Google Books 194: 193: 179: 131: 119: 101: 60: 34: 1741: 1740: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1732: 1731: 1730: 1729: 1723:deletion review 1712: 1661:or redirect to 1603: 1595: 1572: 1564: 1536: 1528: 1480: 1472: 1444: 1436: 1422: 1414: 1374: 1366: 1337: 1329: 1282: 1258: 1149: 1141: 1077: 1069: 964: 956: 880:is essentially 859: 851: 828:Abraham Lincoln 825: 790: 782: 646: 617: 609: 593: 553: 406: 390:(as proposer). 278: 136: 127: 92: 76: 73: 62: 58: 41:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 1739: 1737: 1728: 1727: 1707: 1706: 1685: 1656: 1634: 1633: 1632: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1498:86.161.251.139 1432: 1321: 1320: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1245: 1244: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1198: 1197: 1196: 1186:86.161.251.139 1176:A page titled 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1088: 1087: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005: 995:86.161.251.139 923:86.161.251.139 916: 915: 897: 896: 886:86.161.251.139 832: 831: 822: 821: 818: 815: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 800: 777:Sea of Cowards 760: 759: 758: 757: 756: 755: 730:86.161.251.139 691: 658: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 628: 627: 565: 564: 526: 488: 487: 467: 447: 427: 403: 402: 392:86.161.251.139 380: 379: 378: 377: 376: 375: 374: 373: 363:86.161.251.139 333: 332: 331: 330: 320:86.161.251.139 272: 253:86.161.251.139 251: 197: 196: 133: 72: 67: 56: 54:The Bushranger 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 1738: 1726: 1724: 1720: 1715: 1709: 1708: 1705: 1701: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1686: 1684: 1680: 1676: 1672: 1668: 1664: 1660: 1657: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1643: 1639: 1636: 1635: 1612: 1608: 1606: 1600: 1598: 1591: 1581: 1577: 1575: 1569: 1567: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1541: 1539: 1533: 1531: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1503: 1499: 1495: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1485: 1483: 1477: 1475: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1463: 1459: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1449: 1447: 1441: 1439: 1433: 1431: 1427: 1425: 1419: 1417: 1410: 1409: 1408: 1407: 1406: 1402: 1398: 1394: 1390: 1389:internet meme 1385: 1384: 1383: 1379: 1377: 1371: 1369: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1356: 1352: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1342: 1340: 1334: 1332: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1319: 1315: 1311: 1306: 1302: 1299: 1298: 1293: 1289: 1285: 1278: 1274: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1254: 1250: 1247: 1246: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1226: 1222: 1218: 1214: 1210: 1207: 1206: 1195: 1191: 1187: 1183: 1179: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1169: 1165: 1160: 1159: 1158: 1154: 1152: 1146: 1144: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1133: 1132: 1124: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1106: 1105: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1086: 1082: 1080: 1074: 1072: 1066: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1045: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1004: 1000: 996: 992: 989: 985: 980: 979:edit conflict 975: 974: 973: 969: 967: 961: 959: 952: 951: 950: 946: 942: 938: 934: 933: 932: 928: 924: 920: 919: 918: 917: 914: 910: 906: 901: 900: 899: 898: 895: 891: 887: 883: 879: 875: 872: 871: 870: 869: 868: 864: 862: 856: 854: 848: 844: 843: 842: 841: 840: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 829: 823: 816: 812: 799: 795: 793: 787: 785: 778: 774: 770: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 754: 750: 746: 741: 740: 739: 735: 731: 727: 723: 719: 715: 712: 709: 708: 707: 703: 699: 695: 692: 690: 686: 682: 678: 674: 670: 666: 662: 659: 657: 653: 649: 643: 639: 636: 635: 626: 622: 620: 614: 612: 605: 604: 603: 600: 598: 597: 596: 588: 583: 582: 581: 577: 573: 569: 568: 567: 566: 563: 560: 558: 557: 556: 548: 544: 541: 538: 534: 530: 527: 525: 521: 517: 516: 511: 510:WP:NOTCLEANUP 507: 504: 501: 497: 493: 490: 489: 485: 481: 477: 473: 468: 465: 461: 457: 453: 448: 445: 441: 437: 433: 428: 425: 421: 417: 413: 410: 405: 404: 401: 397: 393: 389: 385: 382: 381: 372: 368: 364: 360: 356: 355: 354: 350: 346: 343: 342:WP:NOTCLEANUP 339: 338: 337: 336: 335: 334: 329: 325: 321: 317: 316:internet meme 313: 309: 306: 305: 304: 300: 296: 291: 287: 284: 283: 282: 276: 270: 266: 260: 258: 254: 249: 245: 244: 241: 237: 234: 230: 227: 224: 220: 216: 212: 208: 201: 200:the talk page 192: 188: 185: 182: 178: 174: 170: 167: 164: 161: 158: 155: 152: 149: 146: 142: 139: 138:Find sources: 134: 130: 126: 123: 117: 113: 109: 105: 100: 96: 91: 87: 83: 79: 75: 74: 71: 68: 66: 65: 61: 59:One ping only 55: 51: 44: 42: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 1713: 1710: 1687: 1658: 1646:AndyTheGrump 1637: 1604: 1596: 1573: 1565: 1550:AndyTheGrump 1537: 1529: 1514:AndyTheGrump 1481: 1473: 1458:AndyTheGrump 1445: 1437: 1423: 1415: 1397:AndyTheGrump 1392: 1375: 1367: 1351:AndyTheGrump 1338: 1330: 1300: 1272: 1248: 1208: 1150: 1142: 1122: 1078: 1070: 1043: 965: 957: 877: 860: 852: 846: 791: 783: 772: 717: 710: 693: 660: 637: 618: 610: 591: 590: 586: 551: 550: 539: 528: 513: 512:. Cheers, — 502: 491: 383: 307: 285: 264: 242: 233:non-reliable 204: 186: 180: 172: 165: 159: 153: 147: 137: 124: 49: 47: 31: 28: 1052:pornography 882:meaningless 728:to verify. 531:, also per 163:free images 1667:WP:POVFORK 1164:Editor2286 1095:Editor2286 1031:Editor2286 941:Editor2286 905:Editor2286 745:Editor2286 722:key aspect 698:Editor2286 647:Beerest355 1719:talk page 1234:IRWolfie- 726:difficult 673:this edit 669:this edit 572:IRWolfie- 476:• Gene93k 456:• Gene93k 436:• Gene93k 416:• Gene93k 314:, NOT an 221:and fail 219:anecdotal 37:talk page 1721:or in a 1642:WP:MEDRS 1310:MelanieN 1305:WP:MEDRS 1277:WP:MEDRS 1249:Redirect 1230:WP:MEDRS 1217:WP:MEDRS 1060:WP:MEDRS 988:WP:MEDRS 773:anything 711:Comment. 661:Redirect 638:Redirect 594:cyclopia 554:cyclopia 543:contribs 533:Gaijin42 506:contribs 496:Gaijin42 345:Gaijin42 295:Gaijin42 223:WP:MEDRS 215:PsycINFO 122:View log 39:or in a 1283:Georgia 1259:Georgia 1225:WP:NPOV 1050:and/or 681:Flyer22 308:Comment 268:endaliv 169:WP refs 157:scholar 95:protect 90:history 1659:Delete 1638:Delete 1597:Lesion 1566:Lesion 1530:Lesion 1474:Lesion 1438:Lesion 1416:Lesion 1368:Lesion 1331:Lesion 1301:Delete 1273:Delete 1221:WP:GNG 1209:Delete 1143:Lesion 1071:Lesion 1044:Delete 958:Lesion 853:Lesion 784:Lesion 677:Jytdog 611:Lesion 384:Delete 290:WP:GNG 250:page. 141:Google 99:delete 50:delete 1688:Merge 1281:Sandy 1257:Sandy 1065:WP:OR 1056:WP:RS 184:JSTOR 145:books 129:Stats 116:views 108:watch 104:links 16:< 1700:talk 1679:talk 1650:talk 1605:talk 1574:talk 1554:talk 1538:talk 1518:talk 1502:talk 1482:talk 1462:talk 1446:talk 1424:talk 1401:talk 1376:talk 1355:talk 1339:talk 1314:talk 1288:Talk 1264:Talk 1238:talk 1190:talk 1168:talk 1151:talk 1099:talk 1079:talk 1035:talk 999:talk 966:talk 945:talk 927:talk 909:talk 890:talk 861:talk 792:talk 749:talk 734:talk 702:talk 694:Keep 685:talk 671:and 652:Talk 619:talk 587:what 576:talk 537:talk 529:Keep 520:talk 515:Cirt 500:talk 492:Keep 480:talk 460:talk 440:talk 420:talk 396:talk 367:talk 349:talk 324:talk 299:talk 286:Keep 257:talk 177:FENS 151:news 112:logs 86:talk 82:edit 1690:to 1669:of 1251:to 716:. 675:by 640:to 275:Δ's 191:TWL 120:– ( 1702:) 1694:. 1681:) 1673:. 1652:) 1644:. 1609:) 1578:) 1556:) 1542:) 1520:) 1504:) 1486:) 1464:) 1450:) 1428:) 1403:) 1380:) 1357:) 1343:) 1316:) 1290:) 1266:) 1240:) 1192:) 1170:) 1162:-- 1155:) 1101:) 1083:) 1067:. 1037:) 1001:) 970:) 947:) 929:) 911:) 892:) 884:. 865:) 849:. 826:— 820:” 814:“ 796:) 751:) 743:-- 736:) 704:) 687:) 623:) 578:) 522:) 482:) 474:. 462:) 454:. 442:) 434:. 422:) 414:. 398:) 369:) 361:. 351:) 326:) 301:) 279:/ 271:// 171:) 114:| 110:| 106:| 102:| 97:| 93:| 88:| 84:| 52:. 1698:( 1677:( 1648:( 1601:( 1570:( 1552:( 1534:( 1516:( 1500:( 1478:( 1460:( 1442:( 1420:( 1399:( 1372:( 1353:( 1335:( 1312:( 1286:( 1262:( 1236:( 1188:( 1166:( 1147:( 1097:( 1075:( 1033:( 997:( 981:) 977:( 962:( 943:( 925:( 907:( 888:( 857:( 845:( 788:( 747:( 732:( 700:( 683:( 615:( 574:( 540:· 535:( 518:( 503:· 498:( 478:( 458:( 438:( 418:( 394:( 365:( 347:( 322:( 297:( 265:M 255:( 202:: 195:) 187:· 181:· 173:· 166:· 160:· 154:· 148:· 143:( 135:( 132:) 125:· 118:) 80:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
talk page
deletion review
The Bushranger
One ping only
07:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction
Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
View log
Stats
Google
books
news
scholar
free images
WP refs
FENS
JSTOR
TWL
the talk page
erectile dysfunction

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑