Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was

Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome is, as its wisely added "disclaimer" states, the figment of the mind of one particular researcher. It seems to have found no resonance in the sexology research community. The claims in this article go unsupported by evidence, and Delete seems the only sensible answer. JFW | T@lk 11:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Voting Recap table. Please make corrections as needed. If you add a vote, add your name to the table. If you change your mind, move your name. Note: Only names go in this recap. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 13:48, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Keep votes  
Keep
  1. William M. Connolley
  2. Fastfission
  3. Jmabel
  4. RedWordSmith
  5. Ŭalabio
  6. JCarriker
  7. Crevaner
  8. CloudSurfer
  9. Denni☯
  10. zenohockey
  11. Davodd
 Redirect
Delete
  1. Doug22123
  2. func(talk)
  3. Vina
  4. Sander123
  5. Improv
  6. Fire Star
  7. Nunh-huh
  8. Ambi
  9. Sean Curtin
  10. Robert Merkel
  11. Samuel J. Howard
  12. The Anome
  13. Sjc
  14. Smerdis of Tlön
  15. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest)
  16. Wile E. Heresiarch
  17. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]]
  18. Cyrius|✎
  19. Andris
 Abstain or Ambiguous or Anon vote
  1. User:Jamdonutuk Unsigned "keep"
  2. 206.124.29.2 Anon "delete"
  3. 81.153.249.196 Anon "delete"


  • Delete. I created this article but am changing my vote to delete. I would rather have net users searching on Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome find my web site, HealthyStrokes.com, where the content is under my sole control, rather than the Wikipedia article, whose content will apparently be heavily influenced by various discontents if the article is allowed to survive. Doug22123 21:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Didn't you notice the boldface warning right near the "save page" button that says If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Hell yes, but I never would have expected discontents to substitute their own ignorance for knowledge. I would never attempt to edit any article (and I've written articles in encyclopedias that people have to pay for) where I knew nothing about the subject and was only guided by attacking the author and the scholarship underlying the piece. References to "water skiers enema" and "joggers nipple" are downright insulting. But does anyone really doubt those conditions exist? Who here has not removed an item from their shirt pocket because it was irritating the nipple? The difference between them and TMS is that they are unimportant and TMS causes disabling sexual problems. Sank's research builds on past research into male sexual dysfunction and his paper is quoted not once but several times in a recent examination of sexually dysfunctional men in a British clinical study. Doug22123 04:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article was originally suspected of being a hoax but (having been sent a copy of the original paper) I now think that is untenable (Talk:Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome). The (now apparently unfounded) suspicion that the whole thing is a hoax appears to have poisoned the debate. Calling it a "figment of the mind of one particular researcher" is, in my view, unreasonable. Its appeared in the (presumably) peer-reviewed literature which gives it a higher status than many wiki articles. It should have a disclaimer at the top (the current one is unreasonable though IMHO) and be a fairly short article. (William M. Connolley 13:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC))
  • I think it's fine as it currently is; it's pretty fringe science but it seems to be "legit" (in the sense of, this guy published an article about it). Frankly the worst part of the study, at least from what I can tell from the article and talk page, is that it only has a sample size of 4, which is hard to believe is enough to establish such a vague "syndrome" from. But anyway, very weak keep. --Fastfission 12:25, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: In science N=4 is generally rejected as insignificant. I'm not sure that we'd be well to report on something that, frankly, should have been called insignificant by the peer review community. Secondly, though, this "syndrome" has attracted self-described victims from Yahoo. Well, that doesn't make it, in my book. Every syndrome, including alien mind control, gathers adherents online. Geogre 12:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I've uh...done...that in...that position...and I'm not traumatized. Mike H 13:23, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
        • Your sarcasm does not help the discussion. There are hundreds of men who have had the same problem; we're not talking about people who have masturbated periodically in that position. It's chronic, to the point where they are unable to climax via any other means, including oral and vaginal intercourse. If you want to jokingly label them as "traumatized", you do a disservice to the issue. The men are not pretend and there problems are not insignificant, embarrassing as they may be.
          • Then some people should have done it the regular way, then, right? Mike H 17:17, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
      • (William M. Connolley 13:29, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)) "n=4 is insig" is wrong. The paper referred to isn't a statistical study, its a case study: case studies of n=1 are perfectly valid.
      • Right. Case study of n=4 is merely a description of those 4 and not the establishment of a syndrome. I.e. "These four people have in common the following." To argue that it establishes a disease state, though, all you've done is say, "Well, I think these four people share these characteristics." Extrapolation from that is, well, not supposed to be even hinted. It's supposed to invite repetition of the experiment and confirmation. None came (so to speak), so it's still an isolated description of four people. Geogre 13:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • Doing a case study can have a valid scientific justification. But going from a case study to treatment plans, yes even school eductation programs, is not justified at all. Bad science at best.Sander123 14:03, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Very Strong DELETE. Perhaps there is a published article. But what is I think is important that it is not picked up by the relevant scientific community. If that doens't happen, it just doesn't exist. There are literally thousands of articles which are published but are not referenced. Putting them in a encyclopedia, especially one not aimed at the field, lends them a credibilty they just do not have. The worst thing that could happen, is that somebody would read it and might think that such a thing as TMS actually exists, something that you might need treatment for. (Quite apart from these consideration, is the fact that the scientific basis is very flimsy. What has been observed is that some people exist who both have TMS and a dysfunction. That is no proof, it might at best be a justification for further research, certainly not listing in an encyclopedia.) Sander123 13:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
In addition, notice the valuative language in it. It sets up a right and wrong way and recommends treatment for a human behavior that is supposedly a disease state. Very peculiar, let's say. Geogre 13:59, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'll check on Web of Science whether anybody else has cited this article. Sander is right - one paper that otherwise sinks without trace isn't noteworthy....--Robert Merkel 14:09, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Doug22123 has only this edit and an entry on the article's talk page to this credit. DJ Clayworth 18:15, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have suffered from the socially debilatating consequences of this condition for 17 years with a loss of sexual sensation in my penis. I am now aged 30. I chanced upon Doug's site via a Google search for 'loss sensation in penis' on 06.09.04 which linked through to the Wikipedia article. I have started on a course of self-treatment following the advice of Doug's Healthystrokes site- no more prone masturbation which was preceeded by a total astention for 6 days. So far I have experienced real results - my sensation is returning, and so is my self-esteme - after 17 years!!!. Without this link I would not have found help or a new hope, where before there was none. I do not think this is quack science of any kind, just a facet of sex therapy which most experts have been ignorant of for too long. To delete the Wikipedia article would be doing knowledge, not to mention human kind a major disservice - and just because the topic may be embarrasing or be considered unworthy by some or because other contributors have been fortunate enough to have been unaffected by their experiences of prone masturbation. Without the Wikipedia link I would not have found help. I thank you Doug for your humanitarianism and for your non-judgemental advice.
  • Delete, bad science presented as good science. Note the above two votes are sockpuppetry. 1 and 2 edits total respectively. -Vina 17:12, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not accepted by the scientific community. --Improv 18:47, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I agree with Vina & Improv, delete. Fire Star 21:01, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I think as long as it is sufficiently clear that this is a fringe view (and I think it is), we should keep. -- Jmabel 23:07, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. To include a full article about every proposed "syndrome" that turns out not to be a syndrome would be a serious disservice to the reader. The article, even in its most mitigated form, overstates the seriousness with which this subject should be taken. Those who wish to publicize their pet theories - and I don't doubt their sincerity - in Wikipedia should establish them elsewhere first. - Nunh-huh 23:16, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Have previously heard about this theory. - RedWordSmith 23:28, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • [sigh...] Delete. Can we start a new wiki project called something like WikiPenis, for all this stuff and its adherants to go to? Seriously, Wikipedia is becoming a hang out for every unfortunate person who has an impotence or erectile disfunction problem, and wants to find something to blame it on. func(talk) 23:30, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep -- For now: I stumbled upon this doing research about sexually mutilated men resorting to frottage or lubricants. After reading the article, I do not know whether it is true, but arcane, or an elaborate hoax. If we delete article, and it turns out to be true, we shall have to recreate it. The path of least resistance is to keep the article for now with a big disclaimer, and delete it in the future, if it turns out to be a clever troll, or remove the disclaimer in the future, if turns out to be real. Ŭalabio 00:13, 2004 Sep 15 (UTC)
If you don't know whether it is "true" after reading the article, the article has misled you. All the more reason for deletion. - Nunh-huh 01:39, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • For the first time, I actually agree with you on this realm of things. Mike H 01:24, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
    • The Sank article is real, you can look it up. Just because one case study suggests a disease exists, however, does not mean that this is accepted by the wider sexology community. It is, as Sean says, just original, unconfirmed research at this stage, and judging by the number of citations (one; Sank citing his own paper in a later article) research that hasn't attracted any attention except from the contributors to healthystrokes.com. The principals of that site do seem to be pretty good at getting themselves listed in search engines and directories; I suspect this article is more of the same. --Robert Merkel 01:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)


  • Delete: original research. (Incidentally: "over 90%" of men masturbate exclusively while on their backs? That seems a bit high.) -Sean Curtin 00:20, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
Not to mention messy. That is a highly improbable statistic. Fire Star 01:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep- What Jmabel and Ŭalabio said. -JCarriker 00:26, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - the stuff from healthystrokes.com is original research, and what's left is one real, but utterly neglected, scientific paper. --Robert Merkel 01:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete and theory proponents should just be glad that we're not going to keep it, because then it would be neccesary to write an article debunking it as a piece of lunatic fringe.--Samuel J. Howard 01:36, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. -- The Anome 08:52, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Spurious beyond imagination. Anyway, only wankers will be interested in this as a subject :) Sjc 08:56, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Were it real, it would be supported by more than one journal article, and would have been discovered centuries ago. Smerdis of Tlön 14:22, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • But Sank makes the very point in his article that the condition is unreported because it could only be learned by doctors asking their patients not only if they masturbate but also how. That is a very intrusive question, something no primary care physician would ever do and something which is apparently asked only reticently even by sex therapists. A main point of Sank's article is that doctors have to ask how a patient masturbates when confronted by a male patient, especially a sexually inexperienced one, complaining of sexual dysfunction. Doug22123 04:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • So then is everything from the past 10 years mentioned in only a single article by definition unreal?
      • You mean, masturbation was invented in the 1990s? Damn that Bill Clinton! No: if there were anything to it, it would have been discovered sooner. Smerdis of Tlön 04:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - If its a legitimate or at least seriously theorized condition, then the article should stay in this encyclopedia. -- Crevaner 16:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete , one paper with 4 cases studies does not a syndrome make. How can we write a NPOV article based on this? We are not allowed to give our own opinion , yet everyone in the medical community appears to have ignored the paper. As far as I can see the only people to have taken any notice are the people who run the website. Since they all agree that the syndrome is bonafide and that masterbating in a prone position is wrong, and will traumstize you if you do it, should we write the article entirely from that POV? We delete plenty of other articles for being not notable. This syndrome is not notable. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 18:31, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Medical neologisms are just like any other kind. There's no evidence that the medical community has picked up on "traumatic masturbatory syndrome". Wile E. Heresiarch 20:37, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Just a comment that it would be the psychological/sex therapy community, not the medical community, that should be picking up on this. Sank's article hasn't entirely been ignored by that community. One article that cites his is "Male psychogenic sexual dysfunction: The role of masturbation" by Lipsith,-Josie; McCann,-Damian; Goldmeier,-David in Sexual and Relationship Therapy 18: 448-471 (2003). 18.171.1.49 23:26, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • That article is available freely online here. Sank's paper is indeed cited in the article, as are a number of others suggesting that patterns of masturbation learned in early life can affect sexual relationships as an adult. That sounds like interesting and important research, though I couldn't help suppressing a giggle at the following quote "Research has shown that many people masturbate...". Getting back on-topic, there is nothing in that paper that supports the specific hypothesis that the specific behaviour discussed here (habitually masturbating "wrong way up") is harmful. Dear anonymous user, how did you find that reference (did you use one of the online databases, for instance), and do you have any more such papers? --Robert Merkel 05:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Most of the article is original research and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia at this point. 206.124.29.2 01:17, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Pending a literature search. The original article was written in 1998 and published in a peer reviewed journal. Anyone who has had experience of this will know that legitimate journals scrutinize the contents of articles and often many revisions are made before the article appears. That is what the process is about. What is important though is whether or not there is further research on the subject. If this idea "withers on the vine" then it can be relegated to history. If other authors in peer reviewed journals reference the concept and article and also do follow up studies then it starts to take on a life of its own. Only two other voters have mentioned this process. If a literature search reveals no references or that the only references are studies that fail to confirm its existence then delete it. I am not in a position to do this search. Many of the reasons so far given for deletion could have been used to delete an article on continental drift in the early days of that theory. --CloudSurfer 03:38, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • You too, CloudSurfer, can do a literature search courtesy of PubMed. Enter the search term "Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome", click "Go" and watch as exactly 1 (one) paper is retrieved. If you click Sank's name on that page, you will see he has 0 (zero) other papers indexed by PubMed. This isn't Continental Drift: going unmentioned by other researchers for 7 (seven) years is pretty much withered, and the vine dead. - Nunh-huh 05:15, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • People here don't seem to understand that the medical literature is not what's important in this case. It's the psych literature. Sank is not a medical doctor and shouldn't expect to be cited in the medical literature. He has been cited many times in the psych literature and the sex therapy literature. He wrote a standard manual on psychological practice. Looking for a psychologist to be cited in PubMed is almost as non-sensical as looking for a physicist to be cited there.
      • People here are just doing due diligence. Help us out. Give us a couple of examples of textbooks or journal articles or review articles or therapy handbooks or something like that that are a) not by Sank and say the syndrome is recognized and cite Sank's paper. We're not necessarily in opposition. We really don't know whether this work is accepted and are trying to find out. So far, nobody's turned up any evidence that Sank's work is taken seriously. If you've got some of that evidence, it would be helpful if you would present it. BTW the manual in question seems to be "Therapist's Manual for Cognitive Behavior Therapy in Groups" by Lawrence I. Sank, Carolyn S. Shaffer (1984), ISBN 0306412292, apparently out of print. An abebooks search shows no used copies; by comparison, a search on the same site for Fannin's "Clinical Optics" turns up four copies, showing that clinical books do show up regularly at the used book dealers on this network. This makes me think that Sank's book may have been a perfectly respectable publication but that it probably isn't "a standard manual." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 16:23, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • See my comment above on the paper cited by an anonymous poster. I agree it's a little disappointing that people don't understand how research publication works. --Robert Merkel 05:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • It's not the end of the world if Wikipedia dismisses something as unproven and it later becomes widely accepted. When it becomes accepted, someone can write an article about it. Just as we do not publish original research—and thereby perhaps miss out on our chances of scooping the rest of the world—it is not our job to be a nursery for seedling facts. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:42, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Medical literature is medical literature. We request sources; there is one. Denni☯ 00:43, 2004 Sep 16 (UTC)
    • One paper in the medical literature is neither here nor there. See Cloudsurfer's comment. --Robert Merkel 05:47, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sample size of 4? Bah. Awful lot of sockpuppets, too. Ambi 08:32, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, primarily because author's remarks above suggest to me that the purpose of the article was to promote his website. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:46, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Not to promote the site per se, but to promote knowledge of TMS. Many men have written to me over the years confused, downhearted, and even just plain angry that no one ever told them the dangers of prone masturbation. They were quite baffled that they had to go through years, even decades of sexual failure, endure agonizing medical tests, when all along the diagnosis was quite simple and the cure not that difficult. Given the relative rarity of erectile dysfunction and anorgasmia in younger men, Wikipedia should at least give readers the opportunity to learn that some (but not most) scholars believe these dysfunctions are linked to prone masturbation. It is silly for men to be tested for endocrine disorders, diabetes, etc., when the simple question do you masturbate lying on your stomach can lead them to a cure, often within days. Doug22123 04:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - a single publication does not a medical reality make. -- Cyrius|✎ 06:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. Science Citation Index finds exactly 1 citation of "Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome" paper - a later paper by Sank. 1 citation in 6 years - that's not a notable paper at all. Andris 23:23, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete.On basis of above input from Andris. Or if article is kept add the citation history. --81.153.249.196 20:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep - Medically speaking, it may not be much, but if columnist Dan Savage talks about it, and masturbation-themed websites discuss it -- and this topic meets both criteria -- then it should be kept. --zenohockey 21:46, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Where does Dan Savage talk about it? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:09, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Since when is Dan Savage's opinion more worthy than that of a board-certified sexologist? Doug22123 04:54, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
BTW I think it's very odd that there are only 17 hits on "Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome" in Google Groups (which includes three alt.masturbation.* groups and five alt.sex.masturbation groups), and a good proportion of these are postings by "Doug22123"). The first posting was early in 2002. If this problem were widespread, over two years I would have expect to see many postings by sufferers emerge. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 22:18, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Only if you believe that someone with an embarrassing sexual problem is more likely to post to a public Usenet forum rather than an anonymous support group.
By comparison, groups.google.com gets 164,000 hits for "impotence", 32,000 for "premature ejaculation", even 885 for the comparatively obscure "vaginismus". All three highly embarrassing.--Robert Merkel 13:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • One final comment, a bit of googling reveals that Lawrence I. Sank and Carolyn S. Shaffer work at the Center for Cognitive Therapy in Bethesda, MD, and reveals a phone number (but no email). If somebody is interested enough, they could call Dr. Sank up on Monday and ask him whether there has been any followup work done by others. If you do so, it would be best you notify us here so he doesn't get deluged with phone calls. --Robert Merkel 22:39, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Whyever would anyone bother Dr Sank about this? This article is going to disappear forever on Monday.
1) If, by any chance you have an email address for him, let us know and we can email rather than phoning.
2) Now, as for the article disappearing... VfD discussions are not really a vote, certainly not a majority vote. When the discussion period is over, a sysop inspects the discussion and decides, based on his or her judgement, whether there is a rough consensus to delete. And, secondly, the VfD is a minimum time period, but it often takes a day or to for a sysop to act. Nobody has started putting up a formal tally yet, but even ignoring anons, sockpuppets, and one diehard retentionist, I think I see something like eight or nine "keep" votes. It is up to the judgement of whatever sysop decides to act on the vote, but, speaking someone who thinks the article should be deleted, I don't think it's perfectly clear that is a consensus to delete. I think there's about an even chance that the article will be kept. If it is kept, then for sure it will be edited to a neutral point of view. Very likely editors will want to include information on how widely accepted the existence of the syndrome is. Right now, the people that have been following this have not been able to find citations of Sank's work by anyone but Sank. Dr. Sank is probably in the best position to know who has cited him, and by ordinary scholarship (and courtesy) it is completely appropriate to ask him.
On some web site it gives the address lawrencesank@yahoo.com and in the TMS article (from 1997 or 98) it says lsank@erols.com
Thanks! [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:05, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Is there some reason why you think we should not? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:34, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. Valid topic - even if it is disputed. (which the article should reflect). Davodd 12:59, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Note: Continue vote and discussion above this line

I have just sent the following email to the addresses lawrencesank@yahoo.com and lsank@erols.com

Anyone else contacting Dr. Sank, please note here in this section. There's no reason why I should be the "official" or only contact, but we do want to be polite and not barrage him with email. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Sank
I don't know whether you are familiar with Wikipedia, the free online encyclopedia. Anyone may contribute or edit a page, which sounds strange, but in practice works surprisingly well.
Someone recently contributed an article on "Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome." You can read it at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traumatic_Masturbatory_Syndrome . The contributor has the Wikipedia username of Doug22123 and indicates that he runs the website http://www.healthystrokes.com.
There is a debate in progress as to whether this article should be kept in Wikipedia, or whether it should be deleted as not being widely accepted as factual.
You should understand that although Wikipedia accepts content from everyone, that content can also be edited or remove by anyone. One of Wikipedia's policies is that it does not publish "original research." That is, an article on a scientific topic is not automatically accepted, even if the facts in it are supported by references to peer-reviewed literature. Wikipedia is supposed to contain only things that are widely accepted facts. (When material is widely accepted by one large faction, but not by another, the article presents both sides from a neutral point of view). That's the ideal. In practice, Wikipedia's adherence to these policies is, of course, uneven.
The people discussing the article are trying to do our own form of due diligence. We are trying to find out whether the existence of traumatic masturbatory syndrome is widely accepted in the medical, psychological, or therapeutic community. We are not experts, but the people who have looked into it have, so far, not been able to find any evidence that your paper is cited by others, or has led to significant follow-up work by others, or that traumatic masturbatory syndrome is well-known (outside of the website www.healthystrokes.org).
The paper we're referring to is: Lawrence I. Sank. Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome. Journal of Sex and Marital Therapy 24(1): 37-42 (1998). One person who used the Science Citation Index found only one citation of this paper, a later paper of your own.
Any comments you might have would be much appreciated. If the existence of TMS is widely and generally acknowledged within a significant therepeutic community, we do not want to remove the article about it. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 20:00, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Status: no mail bounce messages from either address, no replies yet. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 12:07, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Traumatic_Masturbatory_Syndrome&oldid=1083679689"