Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-BPD: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MacGyverMagic (talk | contribs)
Zeraeph (talk | contribs)
[[Non-BPD]]: Strong delete
Line 6: Line 6:
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'''. [[User:Grace E. Dougle|Grace E. Dougle]] 11:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
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'''. [[User:Grace E. Dougle|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]]. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 12:03, 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]]. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 12:03, 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 [[User:Grace E. Dougle|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? --[[User:Zeraeph|Zeraeph]] 12:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:06, 21 February 2007

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]