Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark triad (1st nomination)


 * 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 keep. Overall consensus herein is for article retention. Discussion about the article, a potential merge, etc. can continue on its talk page. North America1000 01:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Dark triad

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article is highly subjective, consists of a lot of original research and seems unencyclopedic. I would like to see a discussion about whether or not deletion or merge would be in order, because it seems to me like a whole lot of sources about actual, existing conditions (narcissism, psychopathy) are thrown together to create the illusion of an actual concept. Libercht (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Strong keep: Deleting this article is a ridiculous idea. There are plenty of academic studies where the "dark triad" is identified collectively eg as dark triadic traits: https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22Dark+triad%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0CB4QgQMwAGoVChMIsY7-mK3JxwIVA0bbCh0QXgnO. Also books: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Dark+triad%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=ahHfVYqvLMa3Ubu6tMgK#q=%22Dark+triad%22&tbm=bks --Penbat (talk) 13:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My ideal would be a merge to personality disorder (or maybe narcissistic personality disorder). If you look at the DSM IV criteria for narcissistic personality disorder, you'll note that two of the three "dark triad" are present, and that psychopathy is linked with ASPD (which aligns with NPD in the cluster B spectrum. Looking at google scholar, there seem to be 2-3 principal researchers on this topic whose names come up over and over, and little in the way of secondary/independent/review articles. The overlap is large and dark triad and narcissism are almost always discussed together. Some of the dark triad article was OR padding (which I have removed but will no doubt creep back in over time) and much is covered elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Yes maybe this article does require some clean up, but https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22Dark+triad%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart&sa=X&ved=0CB4QgQMwAGoVChMIsY7-mK3JxwIVA0bbCh0QXgnO tells you of the veracity of the subject and it is not just 2 or 3 researchers. The poor state of an article is not in itself a reason to delete it. The idea of merging with personality disorder is a complete non-starter:
 * Machiavellianism not recognised as a PD
 * psychopathy not the same as ASPD
 * narcissism not necessarily NPD - it could just as easily refer to narcissism at the subclinical trait level.
 * --Penbat (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (a) I didn't say only 1-2 researchers, papers are done with assistants, trainees etc, but there are a few names overlapping a helluvalot. (b) Machiavellianism is a trait, traits are not PDs as such. Instead it aligns with criterion 6 of NPD "Is inter-personally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends." pretty damn closely, I'd say. (c) psychopathy is not strictly synonymous with ASPD, but I was pointing out the overlap. (d) one is a trait of the other - well, the two haev a complex relationship. Really we should have fewer and broader articles where these entities can be presented in a holistic and spectrumy way rather than false subdivisions. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Like it or not, many researchers have found enough commonality between the 3 dark triad components to study them as a collective entity. It would be seriously confusing merging them with PDs which anyway are at the pathological level not the trait level. I personally dont see that dark triad correlates more strongly to narcissism than the other 2.--Penbat (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * delete seems to have WP OR (if OR removed I would be inclined to change my opinion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Sounds like you just gave the article a cursory glance as it stands. Did you not look at Google Scholar ? The fact that an article contains OR (which is arguable) is not in itself a reason for deleting it.--Penbat (talk) 16:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (non-expert comment) Keep if somebody can provide cleanup and WP:Stewardship. I have a hard time imagining that the many dozens of tightly focused sources at Google Scholar could be handled without a dedicated article. The problem, if I may be frank, is that (per Web searches) the term seems to have gained a lot of currency among Internet communities who are often problematic for Wikipedia: self-identified trolls, pickup artists, and so on. See http://metareddit.com/r/DarkTriad/. Consequently, the article needs some editors who understand psychology, and WP, well enough to keep everything under control. FourViolas (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: OK, I concentrate on Wiki psychology articles and a sizable proportion (maybe 30%) are seriously inadequate and need beefing up. Yes this article does need work based on reliable sources from Google Scholar but there are many psychology articles in a worse state. Not too sure what your point is about junk like http://metareddit.com/r/DarkTriad. Obviously it would not be suitable as a reliable source. I would love WP:Stewardship for many psychology articles on Wikipedia but very few suitable people exist. I have tried to point Wikipedia psychology articles in the direction of academics with little success. I have put "expert help required" banners in psychology articles and nobody has responded years later. I'm happy to do what I can to beef this article up myself tho.--Penbat (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep, or merge per Casliber. The nom's apparent contention that the whole concept is OR or dubious seems just wrong. A merge might be best, but may not be a pressing need. Johnbod (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Penbat. My search also yields multiple reliable sources, such as European Journal of Personality, Review of General Psychology, Personality and Individual Differences. The article may benefit from some tweaks though. Brandmeistertalk  17:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. Agree with Penbat. The Dark Triad as a named concept is more than 10 years old (e.g. see this article http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/spc3.12018/abstract?userIsAuthenticated=false&deniedAccessCustomisedMessage= ) and has been the subject of many independent studies. Furthermore, the concept is distinct from personality disorder, as it was developed to study personality variation in non-clinical populations. The claim by Cas Liber that the concept represents a "false subdivision" would appear to be his own opinion and therefore OR. The dark triad is a topic that academics have chosen to research in its own right. Of course it is related to other topics in psychology, but this does not mean individual editors should impose their own preferred categorisation schemes on existing topics that are recognised by experts in the field as worthy of distinct study. --Smcg8374 (talk) 04:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep-- this article has at least 2 reliable sources and therefore is notable. Deletion is not a substitutef or suitable cleanup. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The term appears to be treated by many academics as a discrete concept from personality disorder.  In fact, it appears that some evolutionary psychologists don't even consider the traits to necessarily be a "personality disorder" since men and women with these traits have often been crisis survivors, risk takers, leaders, and change-makers throughout history, as well as more reproductively successful, which may account for the evidence in several academic studies that women often feel stronger sexual attraction to men who exhibit these traits.  Anyway, per Penbat and Smcg, the sources support having this as a separate article. Cla68 (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2015 (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.