Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Causes of major mental disorders


 * 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   redirect to Causes of mental disorders. Consensus is that this fork is not needed and has copyright/OR problems. The redirect allows a later merging of selected content if these problems are addressed.  Sandstein  05:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Causes of major mental disorders

 * – ( View AfD View log )

PROD tag removed without explanation by SPA. Article is an original essay Yunshui (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The article's creator does not appear familiar with Wikipeida's policy concerning original research (see comments on talkpage). The essay (or one very similar) was apparently published in the journal of Medical Hypothesis (2006) 67,395-4000 with the title "Considering the major mental disorders as clinical expressions of periodic pathological oscillations of the overall operating mode of brain function"; this could perhaps be used as a source for a new, WP-compliant, version of the article. Yunshui (talk) 08:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which means this isn't original research, doesn't it? If this material been published in Medical Hypothesis, then OR can't possibly apply, can it? However, equally, it's a copyvio of the Journal of Medical Hypothesis article and needs to be blanked accordingly, unless and until Dr Pediaditakis is able to provide permission for us to use his text via the WP:OTRS system.  This is because anyone could claim to be Dr Pediaditakis, or register an account in his name.  We need to be sure that the real copyright owner really does give us permission to use this content. Since this is independently-published research that appears in an eminently apparently reliable source, once permission has been received there is absolutely no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't host this content.— S Marshall  T/C 11:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Valid point. I hadn't seen the note about publication until after proposing AfD. The Journal of Medical Hypotheses may not meet WP:RS, though; according to | this letter of concern from the National Library of Medicine it is not peer-reviewed and has a very minimal bar for inclusion. WP:NOTESSAY definitely prefers peer-reviewed journals. For that matter, even if copyvio is dodged by getting Dr Pediaditakis' permission (and that shouldn't be too hard; I'm fairly convinced he's on the level), this still falls foul of WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, and would need a major - near total - rewrite if kept. Yunshui (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Valid response. Wikipedia does have an article on Medical Hypotheses that suggests it became peer reviewed in June 2010, after the material we're considering.  On the other hand, WP:NOTTEXTBOOK is not an argument for deletion.  It's an argument for rewriting as an encyclopaedia article aimed at the uninformed but intelligent and curious lay person. In any case, I think that Wikipedia ought to have an article on the causes or risk factors for psychological disorders, and indeed it does: causes of mental disorders.  The text we're considering here appears to contain worthwhile additions to that topic and I'm quite sure that Dr Pediaditakis' knowledge will be helpful in drafting our treatment of the topic, if he retains his goodwill towards Wikipedia after this somewhat bureaucratic process.  There's an impressive list of references to check, too.  I think that if the copyright issue can be overcome, then the material itself is fixable, which means that per WP:ATD we shouldn't delete it.— S Marshall  T/C 16:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Smerge to causes of mental disorders when and if the copyright issue can be solved by WP:OTRS permission per the discussion above.— S Marshall T/C 17:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  — I, Jethrobot drop me a line 17:05, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Change !vote to smerge per S Marshall; seems like a thoroughly sensible compromise. Yunshui (talk) 07:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Clearly fails No Original Research, since the article states a conclusion at the end. The information contained therein has been selected to argue that conclusion, which means I suspect an inherent POV.  I think smerge is the wrong way to go, since it may introduce bias to other articles. Roodog2k (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless the author can clearly define his sources (WP:RS) making the article verifiable (WP:VERIFY) through citation the article should be deleted. A great deal of the article surround temperament as the major cause of mental illness avoiding most other possible causes. (A clear clinical definition of temperament is not given.) At best the article title might be changed to reflect this emphasis. These issues combined lead me to believe it is original research (WP:NOR ) promoting a (WP:POV). It also appear to be a fork (WP:CFORK  ) with  causes of mental disorders. The article might be salvaged in part if merged with causes of mental disorders as a section should verifiable sources be provided.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I haven't checked them all, but a random sampling of the sources quoted in the article do seem to meet WP:RS. They haven't been inlined properly, which is a pain, and obviously none of them directly support the conclusion, but with a bit of work the information therein could be useful in the Causes of mental disorders article. IMHO, anyway... Yunshui (talk) 07:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Only one basic reason is given for mental illness, temperament. Reason, alone makes me believe there might be more then one. As a stand alone article if it remains it maybe a misrepresentation of the reason(s) for mental illness. This in turn, would make the article POV.--User:Warrior777 (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Although article is not written according wikipedia style and it looks like essay and also seems to be a study material. Author should be encouraged to rewrite it in wikipedia style so that it is encyclopedic content. Sehmeet singh  Talk  11:18, 25 July 2011 (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.