Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-BPD

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 Delete. Cbrown1023 talk 02:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-BPD

Non-BPD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article deals with the group dynamics in a relationship with mentally ill people, especially borderlines and narcissists. While the topic this article tries to address is valid, this article is not maintainable. It would have to be rewritten and moved.
This is impossible due to editorial gridlock. An article 'owner' has been trying to get rid of the page for more than half a year (strangely enough he never listed it for deletion). Work on this article is impossible (constant deletions reverts and what not appearing on the horizon, most writers will be scared off just like me). There is no benefit in having this article. Whoever wants to write on this topic should recreate the article under a more appropriate title, probably a broader topic like Relationships with mentally ill people. The topic is more of a self-help-topic which is covered by popular press and psychology. The article owner thinks that only natural science topics should be allowed on Wikipedia and cites numerous policies. (None of the policies confirms that of course.) It is pretty much impossible to cover the topic from the point of view of natural science due to its nature being a self-help-topic. The authors of the books that this article is based on are all social scientists (psychologists) not psychiatrists (natural scientists).
A redirect to Borderline personality disorder would be misleading, because it covers the opposite of the article in question here and there is a whole group of people on this article who all oppose the inclusion of non-empirical research, popular culture material and self-help-literature. Which I agree with, the content of Non-BPD should not be merged into Borderline personality disorder. Keep popular culture topics separate from hard science. There is almost no psychiatric research about the group dynamics in a group with a mentally ill person which is what the sources for the Non-BPD article would be about. Group dynamics is not a subject psychiatry deals with.

• Delete this article as unnecessary unmaintainable clutter. Grace E. Dougle 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Editing disputes are not a good reason to delete an article on a valid topic. Try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and/or report people who violate WP:3RR and WP:OWN. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

comment:I was willing to improve the article a little but there is no way I will go through lenghty dispute resolution processes. And I believe others will think so too. --Grace E. Dougle 12:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

comment:I just listed it for RFC a couple of hours ago to try and sort it out. Unless there is some hard evidence in the form of citations and valid sources I am not convinced that this IS a "valid topic". It seems to be no more than the agenda of a self help book associated non-notable online support groups.--Zeraeph 12:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What agenda? You have evaded this topic before, please be specific.--Grace E. Dougle 12:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply I haven't evaded anything as far as I can see. Without further valid evidence I have no choice but conclude that the term "Non-BPD" exists only as the topic of a self-help book called "Stop Walking on Eggshells" and it's non notable offshoots. As the book, in itself, seems little more than villification and marginalisation of anybody who can be percieved (not diagnosed, just percieved) to show show traits of Borderline Personality Disorder, a medical condition acknowledged to be caused largely by abuse in the first place. The main author of this book, Randy Kreger is a former (or maybe she still is) public relations consultant who's entire experience of Borderline Personality Disorder, at the time the book was written, consisted in attributing it to at least one family member. Now pardon me if I find all of that a little questionable in terms of validity, encyclopaedic value and NPOV. I make no secret of the fact that I would prefer the article be deleted, BUT I think it is only right and "Wikipaediac" (<is that a word?) to try and establish/see if anyone can establish other valid credentials for the term "Non-BPD". I even went so far as to persuade an editor with appropriate qualifications to re-write a neutral, informed section on "Non-BPD" for the redirect to the Borderline personality disorder article[1], and persuaded him to leave it [2] when he wanted to delete it as a result of a book deal to write a book on the topic. [3]. The section was recently deleted without any objection from me because it had been there for almost a year without attracting one, single citation - valid or otherwise. --Zeraeph 13:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So the agenda of the book by Mason/Kreger, according to you, would be that the authors are trying to vilify and marginalize borderlines? You probably misunderstood this book. There is a process Mason describes that encourages the reader to distance themselves from the person emotionally and try to see the illness in their behaviour rather than the insults (borderlines tend to rage at their relatives/significant others and insult them with all kinds of things). It does not tell them to hate them, vilify them or marginalize them. The same holds true for the other books that talk about relationships with borderlines (Kreisman: I hate you, don't leave me; Lawson: Understanding the borderline mother; Judovsky). Lawson's book even has the term 'understanding' in the title. But we both agree that stressing the non-aspect is not the correct way to tackle this article.--Grace E. Dougle 14:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply No, I am quite certain that I haven't misunderstood anything at all. I am familiar with the book, et al. But this is not the place to debate (or promote) that. This AFD is about the article "Non-BPD". If the term only relates to one self help book and it's agenda without other academic references or citations it is not sufficiently noteable for an article, if however, you, or anyone can find citations from reliable sources that are peer-reviewed and supported by research, just like Racism and Bigotry, however unpleasant, it must stay. But in a neutral, balanced article that also cites the opposition and perhaps manages to get along without links to pdf rants, like "A survivor's tale" by fully identified men about their ex wives (who are identified by association).

Without that, the only valid text for the article is Non-BPD is a term some people use for people who do not have Borderline personality disorder, and once we have that, we had better have "Non-gardener", "Non-anaemic" and "Non-lefthanded" as well.

Have you seen my comment lower down? Did you realise I have requested an RFC when you requested this? If not you might like to consider requesting an early closure without prejudice pending the RFC. I would not oppose that. --Zeraeph 16:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete I was going to list it myself as it was re-directing for months anyway to BPD, and now the Non-BP section it redirected to has been removed from that article (primnarily because it remained uncited and unverified I think) it seemed better to delete. However as it seemed so important to Grace E. Dougle the same editor who just listed it for deletion (??) it only seemed fair to give her plenty of time to come up with some valid, verifiable, NPOV information to convince me otherwise. Obviously that is not going to happen now. Personally I would be very wary of "self-help" articles (particularly on a broad, undefined topic such as "relating to the mentally ill"). It doesn't seem very encyclopaedic, most of the time the "information" in these areas masquerades as pseudo science, while, in fact, being unsupported by any kind of academic sources or research and too many of the "experts" are, in fact, self appointed and, at best, higly subjective (at worse...well...let's not go there...). I am also not sure how wise it would be to encourage that kind of unregulated, agenda driven, promotion in an encyclopaedia? --Zeraeph 12:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
• NeutralChanging because this article was listed for all the wrong reasons, and, as it turns out, prematurely in any realistic sense. The topic may be far broader than previously indicated by the article's content, and there really should not be an AFD before that is explored.--Zeraeph 04:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, this appears to merely be an editing dispute?? They way to resolve this is not by bringing it too AfD. RfC which it seems has been started is a much much better option. Mathmo ^Talk 13:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

comment:I listed this for RFC just over an hour BEFORE this AFD was listed. Somebody just pointed out to me that people might not realise this, not least Grace E. Dougle? --Zeraeph 14:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

And...now what? RFC means request for comment and I've certainly done enough commenting. I would like to see this deleted.--Grace E. Dougle 18:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Solution Just request an early closure here, on whatever you consider your grounds to be, without prejudice to the article's being relisted for deletion again. You might like to also like to repeat the request on WP:AN to hurry things up. I certainly won't oppose, although my personal preference is strongly for deletion I had no intention of listing it without giving you time to come up with valid sources and citations. When you listed it I assumed that you were not going to do so. Somebody pointed out that you were only new and might not have noticed or understood what an RFC might entail.

I will take this opportunity to give you fair notice that the only thing you can do to change my mind is to produce valid, neutral, peer reviewed sources for the notability of the term Non-BPD. Anything else is a waste of your time, and mine. It is probably a good idea to copy this discussion to "requests for comment" on the article's talk page? --Zeraeph 18:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Could there be something you just don't get? I listed this article for deletion, so why should I want to change your mind (you also opted for delete) and produce material that supports an article I want deleted? And that is not a question, just a comment. --Grace E. Dougle 19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant you wanted to delete the AFD for now and go with the RFC. --Zeraeph 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article is called "Non-BPD," but the rest of the article uses the term "nonBP" or "non-BP," which just means not having BPD. Should every article have a non-n equivalent now? I note that in news archives "non-BP" normally refers to things that are not British Petroleum or not affiliated with British Petroleum. Will we need a disambiguation page to distinguish between things that are not BPD and things that are not British Petroleum? PubliusFL 18:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It appears that this short article is the only reference to Non-BP's that is left on Wikipedia. I no longer see Non-BP referred to - where it started - in the Borderline Personality Disorder article.
  To delete the article eliminates all Wikipedia reference to a real social issue. It is for that reason that I oppose the deletion. Someone who has the misfortune to find themselves in a relationship with a BP may find this article to be a very helpful indeed. And Wikipedia is just the kind of place that such an individual may look for this kind of information.
  Perhaps the term "Non-BPD" is a misnomer. It does not mean someone who does not have a Borderline Personality Disorder (as some have suggested). Many people with a Borderline Personality Disorder also claim to be Non-BPD's. A Non-BPD is to someone with a Borderline Personality Disorder as an Al-Anon member is to an Alcoholic. And BTW, there are no references or citations in that article, yet I don't see any move afoot to have it deleted. Could it be that Al-Anon members are more sympathetic figures than Non-BP's?
  I am not enamored of the term Non-BP, if it is too closely associated with Randi Kreger's book, then choose another, more generic term.--gargoyle888 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment I think you will find that is because the Al-Anon article is confined to discussing the nature of the organisation itself, whereas the Non-BPD is confined entirely to pseudo psychology on the nature of relationships with people with BPD, such as As noted, the Reactive nonBP does, in fact, become drawn into the inertia of the Borderline disorder, and does this in two very distinct ways; transpersonally, and counterpersonally. which definately requires either academic citation or deletion. --Zeraeph 04:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply. I see that you have removed the offending text from the article. That's fine with me, in fact, that text always bothered me. Nor would I object to renaming the title from Non-BP to something that is less tied to a Kreger's coined name and commercial interests.

If the outcome of this discussion is to keep the article, then shouldn't there be a link in the BP article to this one? Otherwise, how would anyone ever find this?--gargoyle888 15:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Regardless of whether it is a "real social issue," the article has no reliable sources, and therefore it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. PubliusFL 17:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• delete There is at present no indication of who if anyone has ever used the term.DGG 04:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Delete - I work in the field and have never heard the term. Agree with the non-x argument listed previously. However I would Keep if the term added anything to the understanding of the condition but I don't feel that it does. Cas Liber 05:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

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.