Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antisocial

Article Antisocial listed on WP:VFD Apr 27 to May 3 2004, consensus was to delete. Discussion:

This plodding personal essay is not based in any literature or recognized debate about what is antisocial behavior. This article rests on the flawed premise that antagonism among social groups comprises antisocial behavior. It purports to describe "antisocial heroes" who instead were social heroes within subcultural settings. Antisocial behaviors are typically those that go against the fundamental structure of social interaction, rather than against the cultural direction of any one social group. Beyond Wikipedia's summary, medical diagnosis of an antisocial disorder seeks a multiplicity of symptoms outside a motivating social context, including symptoms of deceit, lack of forethought, spontaneous aggression, recklessness and lack of remorse. A person who is deceitfully non-compliant merely to protect themself against an aggressive or unpopular authority is not diagnosed as having an antisocial disorder, and is not widely recognized as being antisocial. This article advances a false and idiosyncratic idea of what is antisocial. Further discussion of the article is developed on the article's talk page. Torrid 23:34, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * delete. reasons stated above Torrid 23:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's a long-winded ramble without much point to it. Torrid, next time could you be a little more concise in your listings? -- Cyrius|&#9998 00:50, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Done, but could you please offer more constructive and specific criticisms to writers whose work you are diminishing? Rude disparagement might be a tradition in this project, but it is a tactic I prefer to use less rather than more. The problem on this page that most threatens better editorial understanding is a lack of explanation, not an excess.Torrid 02:37, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the article up for deletion when I said "long-winded ramble". I don't see how a simple request for conciseness is "rude disparagement". -- Cyrius|&#9998 02:58, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * Roger that. I considered it rude disparagement of the author, not of myself. My long-winded critique was an effort to avoid rudeness toward the author whose work I disparaged by listing it here. "Rant" struck me as more shrill. The article is longwinded and rambling (though longwinded and rambling are redundant critiques) but it does have a point - it is just a badly flawed point. Torrid 03:01, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Rant. Delete. Denni 02:32, 2004 Apr 28 (UTC)
 * Sorry,I still think it's a rant. This author wants to talk about how a person or a social construct can position itself in a way that runs in a positive manner against the grain of contemporary thinking (fair enough), but then muddies the water loudly and messily with nuclear weapons and the drug trade. Not only is it long and rambling, I really don't see any coherent point being made. Denni 05:04, 2004 May 2 (UTC)
 * This might be interesting on a psychology bulletin board or even a chat room. As an encyclopedia article, it's too POV.  A lot of thought went into this article, but the lack of neutrality puts me in the "delete" column once again. - Lucky 6.9 04:12, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Follow-up comment: Torrid, thanks much for the kind words on my talk page.  Much obliged, and we should all remember to drop a kind word to each other once in a while instead of the H-bombs we frequently drop here.  It's easy to forget sometimes.  You made my evening. - Lucky 6.9 06:32, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

End discussion

Archived from article talk page

I listed this page on VfD, but someone asked that I make my comments there more concise. Except for technical reasons of page length, which would be better remedied by technical measures, I see no reason to diminish discussion that could lead to the rejection of someone's contribution. But nonetheless, I removed some of the critique to his page, if only to make the comments more consistent in length with other critiques on VfD which in my analysis are often insulting jabs that do nothing to tell authors what an article needs to meet par. Below is the excerpted text from VfD: Torrid 02:45, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Such as: "it is often left to individuals who exercise "positive" antisocial behaviour to impose their will" (acting to better construct a society is not antisocial); "Modern-day abolitionists, perhaps most prominently those who seek to legalise marijuana, are also antisocial" (how can societies, such as the Multiple Sclerosis Society, advocate antisocial causes?); "Satire and sarcasm are excellent examples of antisocial behaviour" (Scholarly source compares satire with counterfieting coinage and says counterfeiting is not antisocial) Lead sentence fragment: "A largely misunderstood concept." (Largely misunderstood by whom: anon@24.112.240.131, or by the American Psychiatric Association?); Concluding paragraph:"If one desires to express evil, then they should..." (Encylopedias report what people have done, they don't tell people what they should do).

The author and sole contributor did not even offer a link to the article on Antisocial personality disorder, which seems evidence of a lack of regard for well developed discussion on the topic and offers little encouragement to those who would try to weave this personal essay into a useful article reflecting recognized concepts of what is social or antisocial.

--

End archived talk page