Talk:Dysorgasmia

Its own article?

*Treker, this doesn't need its own article. As you know, there is very little information on this topic. All it needs is a place at Orgasm#Dysfunction and satisfaction. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

No, in your opinion it doesn't need its own article, in my opinion on the other hand I think does. This subject may be underresearched but it has enough coverage in reliable sources as far as I'm concerned. The simple fact that several reliable sources has been noted as an underresearched subject is in itself a good indication of notability. And as far as I know there is no rule on Wikipedia that can't have stub for a medical issue. And based on based on a single google search there is little reason to assume it wouldn't be easy to expand on this article.★Trekker (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not simply an opinion. I know that you like creating subs, but WP:Stub is clear that stubs are not ideal. They especially are not ideal when it is unlikely that they will be significantly expanded and become a full-fledged article. There is no valid reason that we shouldn't merge this little piece to where I pointed to and spin it out into its own article only once there is a lot more material for it. WP:No page is also clear.

On another note: If you are going to edit in medical areas, you should study WP:MEDRS. Cosmopolitan.com is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Where does it say that small medical issues must be merged into larger pages?★Trekker (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, I already pointed out that there is coverage out there to expand the article.★Trekker (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You know that is not my argument regarding WP:No page.

Yes, and I was clear to you that sources like Cosmopolitan.com are not going to cut it. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

The published books aren't good enough I guess?★Trekker (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, if you want to merge it very badly you can A) simply merge it without my concent right now (not going to revert, I'm not into putting exesive effort into minor disagreements anymore) or B) start a larger discussion with other people and if you get a consensus in your favour from them and then do it. You don't need my approval to try to merge it if you think WP guidelines support you doing so. Have a good day.★Trekker (talk) 21:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

One of the sources that pop up in that Google search you pointed to is this 2018 "Textbook of Female Sexual Function and Dysfunction: Diagnosis and Treatment" source. Notice that it speaks of female orgasmic illness syndrome and states "other causes of "dyspareunia"? We have an article on dyspareunia. And this topic you created -- dysorgasmia -- is already covered at the Postorgasmic illness syndrome article.

This 2010 "Dr. Peter Scardino's Prostate Book, Revised Edition: The Complete Guide to Overcoming Prostate Cancer, Prostatitis, and BPH" source from the Google search you pointed to states, "For a time after surgery, 20 percent of men report pain in the penis, scrotum, or perineum during orgasm (dysorgasmia)." Again, we already have the Dyspareunia article, which is about pain during sex.

So, again, this article you created is completely unnecessary. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

You have the lead state "Dysorgasmia is the experience of pain after an orgasm, usually in the abdomen." But that is not the primary way dysorgasmia is defined. After that, even though you stressed "after", you have the next sentence state, "The condition may be experienced during or after orgasm." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)