Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimensional approach to personality 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   keep. Several users seem to be concerned about duplication of coverage in other articles. If that's the case, starting a merge discussion somewhere might be appropriate. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 17:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Dimensional approach to personality disorders
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

There are a variety of reasons this article should, in my opinion, be deleted. Article does not appear to pass WP:GNG. After I have gone looking for sources, it appears in search engines for a phrase in non-psychology terms that would be like Riding a bicycle or "Take a tylenol". Yes, it appears but it is a description of something. See this and this for further evidence of how it is not a notable topic because of the description. The next issue is the article is not actually about the topic. "Dimensional approach to personality disorders" is the article but this phrase only appears once. The article appears to be about a completely different topic. At best, I think the subsections could be merged into other articles and parts of it could be merged into Personality_disorder with a redirect for the article going there. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a textbook and this article reads like that. I don't think, given that the article only mentions the topic in the first sentence, this is easily fixable... especially when combined with the notability issues. LauraHale (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep Clearly notable, just needs some cleanup. Perhaps Dimensional models of personality disorders would be a better name for this, but this is a central concept in personality disorder classification (as opposed to a categorical approach) as seen here, especially in the Alternative Dimensional Models section. The top hits in this Google scholar search also demonstrate that this passes WP:GNG. If this is not written in a manner that is conducive to DYK that's fine, but that's not a reason to delete. Gobōnobo  + c 04:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  Gobōnobo  + c 10:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This editor is an online ambassador for the US Education Program. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

They are not. No personal attacks is policy. Please follow CALM. As William Fleeson states, User:Allexe11 responded within a day to the comments at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/dimensional_approach_to_personality_disorders. Regardless, this AFD nomination is based on the assertion that the article topic, "Dimensional approach to personality disorders"/"Dimensional models of personality disorders" fails the General Notability Guideline and the nominator also states that the article cannot be corrected to reflect the topic. We do not attack/disparage each other's character at AFD...we discuss the validity of the rationale for the nomination for deletion. Smallman12q (talk) 02:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep -As per Gobonobo, the article should probably be renamed to Dimensional models of personality disorders, though approach and model are often used interchangeably in the academic world. There are hundreds of acedmic papers that cover this subject, and the article has references to the different models. The article is a work in progress as part of an academic assignment of a pysch grad student at FSU. This is the user's first article; taking their article to AFD over style concerns is not the right approach. You also didn't notify the user on their talk page which is not right. Please do not bite the newcomers.Smallman12q (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This editor is the online ambassador for the course in question: United States Education Program/Courses/Personality (William Fleeson) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I communicated with the user several times. The article doesn't appear to talk about "Dimensional models of personality disorders" either as that doesn't appear in the article either.  I'll repeat that I can find a huge volume of academic articles about riding a bicycle or taking a Tylenol, but we would not have an article titled Riding a bicycle or Take a Tylenol. The content could and probably should be merged into appropriate existing articles because the article is not about the stated topic. Attachment disorder repeatedly mentions Attachment disorder. Object permanence repeatedly mentions Object permanence. Consciousness repeatedly mentions Consciousness.  Almost all articles talk about their topic... and medical articles should be held to a higher standards.  I can't see how this article can be saved from its not on topic, reads like an academic article and pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk)
 * We have an article for Cycling and if someone was willing, there is sufficient literature to write an article on proper Tylenol dosage. I don't see why there can't be overview/comparison articles on the different aspects of the topic. The article is not complete...and can be reworked to more accurately reflect the title. This is their first article. The article should probably be to Dimensional models of personality disorders. There are books on the topic. From Textbook of Psychiatric Epidemiology p.419: "The issue of the relative merits of categorical versus dimensional approaches cuts accross most domains of pyschopathology. However it is especially significant in the domain of PDs, in part, because of the long tradition of research in personality pyschology based on dimensional models." . I believe there is a misunderstanding in what the topic is.Smallman12q (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * LauraHale did not communicate with the user Abj89 on her talk page or in the talk page to the article "dimensional models of personality disorders". She listed one general criticism of all the students' contributions on the general course page, which mostly focused on her frustration and annoyance that students were apparently not following directions and that she was not being paid to do review work. It had no specific criticism and did not refer to the dimensional models page. Dimensional models of disorders may be the hottest topic in abnormal psychology for the past ten years, and will have major consequences for diagnosis, treatment, and insurance over the coming years, because of its influence on the DSM. The public is going to want to know what these models mean, and I think Wikipedia may be a good place for them to find that information. I was not aware that the count of references to the topic title was an evaluation criterion, but certainly an editor could comment on the talk page that such a change is recommended. William Fleeson (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This editor is the professor of the course in question, United States Education Program/Courses/Personality (William Fleeson). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article was not written by Abj89. The user was repeatedly communicated with during their DYK review.  They did not respond and have yet to respond from what I can tell.  I'm not arguing I should be paid for me work and my bitterness does not stem from that but rather the incompetence of either William Fleeson in preparing students for writing articles and interacting with the community, the incompetence of students in following directions given by William Fleeson and the campus ambassador, or the failure of the programme to set realistic guidelines.  As an academic article, I would probably rate it a C.  As a Wikipedia article, it is pretty awful and it doesn't pass guidelines for WP:GNG. By the way, what was your instructional objective for having students submit WP:DYK?  If your instructional objective was "Students will learn about psychology by submitting subject specific articles to Wikipedia's Did You Know process." then it was ill advised.  You do not learn CONTENT and SUBJECT expertise by going through the Did You Know process.  An appropriate instructional objective related to Did You Know would have been "Students will learn about the peer assessment process and practice following directions by submitting an article to Wikipedia for inclusion on Did You Know." The file File:Outreach Oceania Integrating Wikimedia into the Curriculum.pdf should give you a better idea as to what you're doing William Fleeson as it should give you insights into how to maximise student success while not creating disruption on English Wikipedia.  --LauraHale (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Excuse the mistaken user identification -- Allexe11 wrote much of the article, and my point still stands. LauraHale communicated with this user only starting April 14th, and Allexe11 responded at least once within a day in an attempt to address the concerns. As for the rest of the comment above, I don't see how it is relevant to the discussion about deleting this article, so I'm not going to respond for the time being, other than to assure everyone that we have followed guidelines, recommendations, advice, and files very closely. I do hope that comments like those are not standard for Wikipedia....William Fleeson (talk) 01:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: Name change does not address fundamental issues with article and its content. Comments here by course instructor and ambassador indicate WP:FRINGE may also be at play for article content. Have not seen evidence supporting passage of WP:GNG.  Still support delete as nominator.--LauraHale (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which comments by the course instructor and ambassador gave you the impression that WP:FRINGE was at play? Gobōnobo  + c 23:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Delete as per WP:FRINGE. If this is a well-known approach which is really challenging the DSM as claimed there should be a metric buttload more mainstream references that aren't in the article and don't appear to be in obvious searches. If one or two references really good references can be found, merge to a single paragraph in Big Five personality traits. If references are found (maybe using a different term or in a foreign language?) and added to the page, ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * There needn't be an additional requirement beyond WP:GNG simply because something challenges the DSM. There are ample references already in the article and plenty more that could be included:
 * An opinion piece, from 2007, which states: "There is little doubt that someday the classification of personality disorder will be dimensional."  Are they now?  If not, this opinion has no bearing here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A review, which states "Although there may be some initial resistance to the incorporation of the dimensional models in the future diagnostic manuals, researchers and clinicians are expected to benefit from the more reliable and valid portrayal of personality pathology." Are they now in DSM-5? If not, this can be incorporated elsewhere, accorded due weight.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a review, concerned with whether dimensional classifications should be part of the DSM? Are they?  If not, this can be summarized in personality disorder, giving the issue due weight.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A review, indicating strong resistance to this model ... why is all of this info not in the article? Now I'm seeing an WP:NPOV issue in the article, and if dimensional models aren't currently part of the DSM, then this POV could be presented in personality disorder, accorded due weight.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Another discussion, proposing it be added to the DSM. Has it been?  If not, can be discussed elsewhere.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A review that starts with, "The recognition of the many limitations of the categorical model of personality disorder classification ... "  OK, now I'm seeing still a POV problem.  IF we have so many reviews, why aren't they mentioned, and why isn't this controversy merely a paragraph or two at personality disorder?  IF this model is adapted in DSM-5 (May 2013), then an article is warranted.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gobōnobo + c 09:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I stopped halfway through this list. Instead of defending problems with student editing, why are these advocates for the Education Programs not concerned with teaching students WIkipedia policies (NPOV, OR, SYN, due weight, correct use of primary vs secondary sources), and why were these reviews not used, and why is the controversy not summarized as one or two paragraphs at personality disorder.  Folks advocating for articles of this nature are doing neither the students nor the Wikipedia any favors.  Yes, there are reviews.  They all indicate there is a controversy, this model has not been adopted in DSM, so the controversy is worthy of a mention, according to due weight, somewhere else.  After the primary sources are removed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Another discussion, proposing it be added to the DSM. Has it been?  If not, can be discussed elsewhere.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A review that starts with, "The recognition of the many limitations of the categorical model of personality disorder classification ... "  OK, now I'm seeing still a POV problem.  IF we have so many reviews, why aren't they mentioned, and why isn't this controversy merely a paragraph or two at personality disorder?  IF this model is adapted in DSM-5 (May 2013), then an article is warranted.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gobōnobo + c 09:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I stopped halfway through this list. Instead of defending problems with student editing, why are these advocates for the Education Programs not concerned with teaching students WIkipedia policies (NPOV, OR, SYN, due weight, correct use of primary vs secondary sources), and why were these reviews not used, and why is the controversy not summarized as one or two paragraphs at personality disorder.  Folks advocating for articles of this nature are doing neither the students nor the Wikipedia any favors.  Yes, there are reviews.  They all indicate there is a controversy, this model has not been adopted in DSM, so the controversy is worthy of a mention, according to due weight, somewhere else.  After the primary sources are removed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gobōnobo + c 09:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I stopped halfway through this list. Instead of defending problems with student editing, why are these advocates for the Education Programs not concerned with teaching students WIkipedia policies (NPOV, OR, SYN, due weight, correct use of primary vs secondary sources), and why were these reviews not used, and why is the controversy not summarized as one or two paragraphs at personality disorder.  Folks advocating for articles of this nature are doing neither the students nor the Wikipedia any favors.  Yes, there are reviews.  They all indicate there is a controversy, this model has not been adopted in DSM, so the controversy is worthy of a mention, according to due weight, somewhere else.  After the primary sources are removed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gobōnobo + c 09:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I stopped halfway through this list. Instead of defending problems with student editing, why are these advocates for the Education Programs not concerned with teaching students WIkipedia policies (NPOV, OR, SYN, due weight, correct use of primary vs secondary sources), and why were these reviews not used, and why is the controversy not summarized as one or two paragraphs at personality disorder.  Folks advocating for articles of this nature are doing neither the students nor the Wikipedia any favors.  Yes, there are reviews.  They all indicate there is a controversy, this model has not been adopted in DSM, so the controversy is worthy of a mention, according to due weight, somewhere else.  After the primary sources are removed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Gobōnobo + c 09:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I stopped halfway through this list. Instead of defending problems with student editing, why are these advocates for the Education Programs not concerned with teaching students WIkipedia policies (NPOV, OR, SYN, due weight, correct use of primary vs secondary sources), and why were these reviews not used, and why is the controversy not summarized as one or two paragraphs at personality disorder.  Folks advocating for articles of this nature are doing neither the students nor the Wikipedia any favors.  Yes, there are reviews.  They all indicate there is a controversy, this model has not been adopted in DSM, so the controversy is worthy of a mention, according to due weight, somewhere else.  After the primary sources are removed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I stopped halfway through this list. Instead of defending problems with student editing, why are these advocates for the Education Programs not concerned with teaching students WIkipedia policies (NPOV, OR, SYN, due weight, correct use of primary vs secondary sources), and why were these reviews not used, and why is the controversy not summarized as one or two paragraphs at personality disorder.  Folks advocating for articles of this nature are doing neither the students nor the Wikipedia any favors.  Yes, there are reviews.  They all indicate there is a controversy, this model has not been adopted in DSM, so the controversy is worthy of a mention, according to due weight, somewhere else.  After the primary sources are removed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as per WP:FRINGE Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:FRINGE is not a valid deletion rationale and does not apply here because if it refers to giving undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. If this were the DSM article and the dimensional approach was taking up half the article, that would be a situation in which the fringe guideline would apply. To quote the nutshell definition of fringe, "More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability." This is that article about the idea and notability is the relevant consideration here. Gobōnobo  + c 23:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with your argument here, and will continue to use it as a deletion rationale where I feel than an article is merely a WP:SOAPBOX for a fringe idea. However, I have been convinced that this is not the case, and am striking the vote to delete. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry Hawkeye7. You're quite right. I was mistaken and have so stricken my comments. Gobōnobo  + c 04:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am the main contributor to the Dimensional models of personality disorders page, and a first-time contributor to Wikipedia. I was only notified twice of changes that should be made to the article — I apologize if more than one round of reviews is deemed unaccepable. After the first review I did attempt to make the appropriate changes. The second review was posted at the article's DYK page two hours before the article was nominated for deletion, and at my talk page one hour beforehand. If one to two hours is too long of a waiting period for issues to be addressed, I apologize again. I do believe the article is salvageable, and as mentioned above is growing a as a major topic in assessment of personality disorders. However, as a first-time contributor, I am still somewhat unsure of the types of things I can do to improve notability, encyclopedic tone, etc, and any suggestions and/or examples would be greatly appreciated. I have found some psychology and psychiatry websites, which are not original research articles, that talk about dimensional models of personality disorders — are these the types of things that should be cited to increase notability? (Also, if this is the wrong place for this discussion, please let me know, and please direct me to where this type of comment should go.) Allexe11 (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Kudos to Allexe11, for declaring his/her involvement in this discussion and for asking relevant questions about how to improve the article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I suggest a merge. This article spends a lot of space talking about the Big Five personality traits including variations like two factor and seven factor. It seems to me that the content could be kept but merged into that article instead of being a separate article. I must admit that I have some suspicions that this article was created with the motivation of encouraging the adoption of this model in the upcoming fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, because this article gave high prominence to claims in the opening section of the article and includes little criticism of the model. At the minimum it seems to me that this article needs to sound less like a push to include this model in the DSM-V. Pine(talk) 08:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the point to make here is that the article is an overview of the different models, five factor, two, seven, et al. Big Five personality traits is about the traits of one of those models and doesn't address personality disorders, so merging this doesn't seem workable to me. Regarding your suspicions, are the lack of criticism and the claims in the lead the only basis for them? If so, calling the article creator's motivations into question seems unwarranted here. Let's assume good faith and if there's any bias, it can be corrected. Gobōnobo  + c 00:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A comparison/overview of the models sounds like a good idea for an article, but this isn't it. Something like Comparison of document markup languages might work, but I see nothing of an article like that in an article like this. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Widiger's article in World Psychiatry entitled "Dimensional models of personality disorder" does a good job of explaining why an overview/comparison is necessary here as well as establishing the notability of this topic. A neat table of comparisons might work well for markup languages, but prose is more useful here. Gobōnobo  + c 08:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. I did a Google Scholar search for "Dimensional approach to personality disorders." There are numerous citations to articles in both the scholarly literature in psychology and psychiatry and in news and other semi-popular sources relevant to psychology. I've includes some of the citations below. A number of these citations themselves have been cited hundreds of times.  Many different authors have written about this topic. The topic has been the subject of literature reviews. Whether to think about personality disorders in terms of discrete categories (e.g., Antisocial personality disorder) or in terms of a configuration of dimensions, like extroversion and neuroticism) is an open discussion in both the research literature and practice in developing the DSM-V.  All of these factors suggest that the article meets standards for notability.Robertekraut (talk) 19:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hayes, S. C., Wilson, K. G., Gifford, E. V., Follette, V. M., & Strosahl, K. (1996). Experiential avoidance and behavioral disorders: a functional dimensional approach to diagnosis and treatment. Journal of consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64(6), 1152.
 * Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five-factor model to represent the DSM-IV personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110(3), 401.
 * Krueger, R. F., Skodol, A. E., Livesley, W. J., Shrout, P. E., & Huang, Y. (2007). Synthesizing dimensional and categorical approaches to personality disorders: refining the research agenda for DSM‐V Axis II. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 16(S1), S65-S73.
 * Morey, L. C., Gunderson, J., Quigley, B. D., & Lyons, M. (2000). Dimensions and categories: The" Big Five" factors and the DSM personality disorders. Assessment, 7(3), 203-216.
 * Endler, N. S., & Kocovski, N. L. (2001). State and trait anxiety revisited. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 15(3), 231-245.
 * Frances, A. (2010). Opening Pandora’s box: The 19 worst suggestions for DSM5. Psychiatric Times, 27(2).
 * This editor was "influential in starting the Association for Psychological Science's Wikipedia Initiative Association for Psychological Science's Wikipedia Initiative", which IMO has produced similar issues wrt sourcing. The citations above are typical of what we are now seeing throughout psych articles, with no PMIDs, no DOIs, nothing to help other editors verify the appropriate use of secondary vs. primary sources, with primary sources proliferating throughout Wikipedia psych articles.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. I looked on the Wikipedia:Fringe page and it says: "An idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea,[1] and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." However, this issue has been discussed and proposed by several authors in peer-reviewed journals and textbooks on personality psychology, and as such is not a fringe issue. A move and some rewriting should be sufficient. Bear in mind that the author is a new contributor and we are all just trying to learn here--specific, constructive criticisms would help her improve the page, rather than a general "this sounds like a textbook rather than an encyclopedia entry", which doesn't really convey the specific issues that user:LauraHale has with the article. Abj89 (talk) 20:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This editor is another student in the same course, United States Education Program/Courses/Personality (William Fleeson)/Articles. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. I reviewed the sources that come up on GScholar, and there are at least several articles for the "Dimensional approaches of personality disorders" and "Dimensional models of personality disorders". This suggests to me it is a topic of interest to an encyclopedia. It may be rather specialized, but hardly fringe. If possible, I'd suggest adding a section to the article discussing who coined the term,and citing several works that use it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 22:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This editor is an online ambassador for the US Education Program. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Do something! There's already a bunch of articles on this subject: e.g. Big Five personality traits, Big Five personality traits and culture, Hierarchical Structure of the Big Five. MathewTownsend (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This on is also about the Big Five: Personality and life outcomes. What's with this? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge There are at least five articles on the Big Five in the DYK queue right now, that contain much of the same information: Hierarchical Structure of the Big Five, Big Five personality traits and culture, Change in the Big Five in (Change in personality over a lifetime), Five-factor model (in Dimensional models of personality disorders) and Personality and life outcomes - basically about the Big Five — all these nominated for DYK right now. And maybe more. I haven't checked them all. So all these new articles on the "Big Five" (especially since you say it's been around a long time?) MathewTownsend (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion underway about DYKs and student-created articles. The outcomes of merger discussions for other articles do not pertain to whether this article is kept. As noted above, the article is an overview of the different models, (five factor, two, seven, etc.). Big Five personality traits is about the traits themselves and doesn't address disorders, so merging this doesn't seem workable to me. Gobōnobo  + c 00:36, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment editors may want to review Meat puppetry to ensure that they are staying within bounds of acceptable behaviour. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm flagging the undeclared participants. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Gobonobo pinged my talk page to look at the new references. There are now significant numbers of references, by a range of authors in a number of forums, and I'm particularly liking  (it would also be nice to see page-ranges of standard undergrad texts which discuss the topic); as a result I'm stepping back from my WP:FRINGE argument. Unfortunately I also have to agree with  User:MathewTownsend and User:LauraHale (as well as my comments above) that this article isn't clear enough about what it's about to differentiate it from related articles. I'm not sure whether the solution is Delete, merge or stubify; but it's not keep. Stuartyeates (talk) 13:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - "Dimensional assessments" are not the same as "Dimensional approach to personality disorders"
 * The article referenced above DSM-V Draft Promises Big Changes in Some Psychiatric Diagnoses does not mention Dimensional approach to personality disorders.


 * It says: Using "dimensional assessments" to account for severity of symptoms, especially those that appear in multiple diagnostic categories. (Notice there is no mention of personality disorders at all in the article.)


 * It also says: Another innovation in DSM-V will be the extensive use of so-called dimensional assessments. Whereas DSM-IV relied heavily on present-absent symptom checklists, the new edition will include severity scales for symptoms, such as anxiety or insomnia, that may appear to larger or smaller degrees in many different mental illnesses.


 * Please don't confuse "assessments" with "personality disorders". MathewTownsend (talk) 01:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong on this, but wouldn't such a specific comment be more suited to the article's talk page? Aside from that, the DSM-V website specifically states that part of the diagnostic criteria for personality disorders will be "one or more pathological personality trait domains or trait facets", and that "The personality domain in DSM-5 is intended to describe the personality characteristics of all patients, whether they have a personality disorder or not." The idea that normal and disordered personality can be described using the same domains is a major component of the dimensional models, and has direct relevance to how PDs are assessed. Allexe11 (talk) 03:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It does belong on the talk page.Smallman12q (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: This discussion appears to be devolving into essentially a terminological dispute. WP:Style states "Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best: avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording." May I suggest that the editors with expertise in the field attempt to re-craft the article lede to explain exactly what the topic of the article is? Without a clear lede it's hard to imagine this discussion making progress. A clear explanation of "Dimensional model", "dimensional approach", proper introduction of acronyms, linking to real pages not disambiguation pages, clarifying the difference between personality pathology and psychopathology in this context would be a great place to start. Bonus points for explaining these terms by linking them to clear definitions in extant articles and/or clarifying which kind of Dimension_(disambiguation) is being talked about. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The lead seems fairly concise and straightforward, though at a college English level, which is fine. What kind of editors with expertise are you looking for...these are pysch graduate students writing the articles under the auspices of a published psychology professor at Wake Forest University. The dimension referred to in the article is a personality characteristic, such as openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism (taken from Big Five personality traits). You can read up more on at Personality Disorders: Controversies and Theory, including dimensional theory. Comments regarding the lead should be raised and addressed on the talk page, not AFD.Smallman12q (talk) 12:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten it to move it towards WP:Style (in my eyes) and improve the grammar and structure (again in my eyes). Stuartyeates (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * These issues are relavent here, because the lack of clarity is negatively impacting this discussion by creating confusion about what the article is actually about. Stuartyeates (talk) 14:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Article should be renamed to Big Five Dimensional approach to personality disorders - It's not an article about "dimensional approaches" in general. It's about the Big Five's dimensional approach. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it is about dimensional models in general - only one model is directly related to the Big Five, one was initially based on the Big Five but made changes, and two are completely independent of the Big Five. I've also addressed this at the article's talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allexe11 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - the Big Five is hardly the first model to use  Trait theory, thus producing dimensions. Any theory that utilizes continuums versus relying totally on categories falls into this category. This article distorts the subject. After all, the 16PF and the MMPI were here long before. An article with this title should explain what dimensions are in personality theory and the history of the use of dimensions. This is just more unjustified focus on one particular measurement, the "Big Five". There are already plenty of articles on the "Big Five" when in the history of psychological personality measurement the MMPI and the 16PF are more important.  MathewTownsend (talk) 03:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep The nom's analogies do not hold, and the only actual reason for deletion appears to be a disagreement about the actual content. I agree there are many models not yet covered, but it is apparent from the article that many sections remain to be written. I do not understand the claims of lack of clarity--this seems perfectly clear to me, so I suppose there is some basic disagreement with some part of the model or some implication of it. I can't say I understand what the disagreement is--the article looks to me like a mainstream introductory article in    psychology, totally appropriate to an academic program, and a good example of academic writing for Wikipedia .  Some of the Academic Program articles have been too much in the nature of essays,  but this seems very appropriately encyclopedic. It is always possible that an instructor of a course might orient an article too closely around their own perspective, but I really don't see this as an example of it. Rather, it looks like those objecting to the article--who do not appear to be specialists in the subject--are the ones who need to prove their case. I do not see they have introduced any references supporting their views; if they were to let us know what material they are relying on, we   could judge what sort of sources they are--this would appear to be a case where the guidelines at MEDRES are applicable.   I've never been a supporter of giving academic specialists power over articles in their own fields without review by the community as a whole, but I would certainly encourage some further input here from people who have some evidence to show that they know what they are talking about.     DGG ( talk ) 04:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This editor is an online ambassador for the US Education Program. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per expansion and added reading/refs. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:19, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article has been improved since you nominated it, but when you nominated it, the article still had a decent number of citations from eminently reliable sources.  Unless you're trying to change our notability standards, it's simply absurd to suggest that that version of this article did not pass WP:GNG.  Moreover, educational collaboration projects are well established and not a COI issue — kindly stop beating a dead horse.  Nyttend (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I have literally no idea how anyone can think this fails the GNG. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This editor is an online ambassador for the US Education Program. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an alternate account of a WMF employee, relevant to the issues with the WFM-backed Education Programs. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not a WMF employee. Please strike your comment. Kevin Gorman (talk) 17:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies-- struck and replaced -- and now I have to figure out how I got that comment in the wrong place and to whom it applied. Perhaps folks coming to these discussions in the future will enter declarations so others don't goof!  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note to observers: I'm not an online ambassador either. I'd specify my connection to the education program, but I think it demonstrates something interesting to see you get it wrong so many times in a row. I will specify: I was not canvassed for this discussion, have discussed it with no other education program participant off-wiki, have no connection to any of the ambassadors/instructors/students in this course, approach every afd on it's own merits, and have previously voted delete or merge on edu program content.  I have no WP:COI by any reasonable definition.  Kevin Gorman (talk) 03:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hold on: first, can everyone coming to this discussion please declare their involvement with the Education Program, so COI and coordinated editing can be evaluated? Second, how many people declaring this article is notable have examined whether it relies mainly on primary sources?  If it does, then the content should be reduced to what is more correctly covered in secondary sources, and merged to another article.  I came to this discussion from WP:ENB, where I detailed the problems with AFDs like this one, involving Education Courses.    Unless someone demonstrates that 1) coordinating editing is not overwhelming the consensus process here, and 2) the article relies mostly on secondary sources rather than original research stringing together primary studies, I conclude with MERGE and REDIRECT, after primary sources being used to produce original research are removed.  Likely target is a paragraph at Personality disorder in treatment. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought; we leave the writing of academic papers based on primary sources to the professionals, and we report what secondary sources say about primary studies. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I have now gone through, added PMIDs (which were missing), so I could determine how many primary studies were being used. I found one review article, and generally primary studies and opinion pieces.  It is unwieldy in the scope of an AFD to detail all of the problems with this article, so I will highlight just one:"Following from these claims, the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-V) draft incorporates a combined categorical-dimensional approach to diagnosing personality disorders ..." DSM-5 will not be adopted and finalized until May 2013, but this sentence is about a draft proposal, one article's claims, and based on opinions from a primary study.  This is not how we write articles on Wikipedia-- we leave synthesis of primary sources to professionals.  Such examples are throughout the text.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Userfy to editor's space for improvements. Having now reviewed the aspects of coordinated editing affecting this AFD, the extensive reliance on primary sources and opinion pieces in the existing article leading to original research, the failure to use secondary reviews available that results in a POV article, the lack of focus of this article and the unencyclopedic tone, the extent of the problems with this particular professor's other course articles, and the helpful attitude and confusion shown by the student editor who created this article, I conclude that the most charitable thing to do is to userfy the article so that the editor who created it can rework it to reflect what secondary sources say, and based on that reworking, decide in which article that text belongs.  We should start from the premise that we write from secondary sources: we don't create original research.  As it stands, there are so many problems (POV, primary sources, unencyclopedic tone, what looks like a class agenda/POV promoted by the professor, complicated by the fact that we don't know what DSM-5 will adopt, so using opinion pieces about the DSM-5 draft is not appropriate), that it is unlikely the article will be cleaned up from its present state, and it is impossible to discern the correct merge target for whatever text can be salvaged.  I'm in favor of giving the student a chance to understand Wikipedia policies, work from secondary sources to reflect them, rework the text to agree with Wikipedia policies, and then decide in which article the content belongs, sans the preset term paper/student essay constraints-- something I don't see the involved parties advocating.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Coming from ANI. Per Gobonobo justification "central concept in personality disorder classification". Our article on personality disorder does not mention this concept in the classification section at all. Maybe a summary their first and than have this as a subarticle if sufficient secondary sources are found. Currently a note a number of primary sources that need trimming.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * This editor is an online ambassador for the US Education Program. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned at Personality_disorder.Smallman12q (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy We have a whole bunch of edits from a whole bunch of editors and there's still no definition of the "dimension" / "dimensional" in the title that makes sense to me. I'm still dithering on whether this is WP:FRINGE but clearly Gobonobo thinks it isn't. There are a ton of references, which might be related, but the only one I actually understand has been disputed. There could easily be an encyclopedia article in there someplace, but if there is, it's not being pointed at effectively by the text as it stands. I encourage those interested in saving the article to go for userfication while they write Dimension (medical diagnostics) and/or a decent section explaining dimensions in Medical diagnosis. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2012 (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.