Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dissociative identity disorder in fiction


 * 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. X clamation point  03:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder in fiction

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I'm not sure of the appropriateness of this article. While Wikipedia isn't censored, it should at least be a bit tactful. I'm not sure what encyclopedic purpose this list serves. It's an IPC article about a mental disorder. There's also a danger that some of the listed examples aren't DID but something else (most notably, Willow from Buffy: if my girlfriend got her brain sucked by the devil incarnate, I'd be pretty pissed; mind you, I never watched the show so I can't verify one way or the other). As the article notes, it is a notable concept, but that said, I don't think it's worthy of its own article. Maybe a sourced section in the DID article which discusses how the disorder has been represented in the media... but a IPC article? I don't think so. Sceptre (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Turn into a proper list. I don't think there's a civility concern especially because it is focused on fiction. If it were a list of people with the disorder there might be a debate there. Clearly there are some inclusion issues since it's a pretty common plot devise, but I don't think those issues are particularly damaging. When I look at the article now I just see a list. I'm not sure there's enough content to make it a topic itself. That's convenient though since there's not any non-list content included now anyway. So as a topic I don't think it's notable stand alone, but as a list I think it's fine. Shadowjams (talk)
 * If a subject is encyclopedic, then it's encyclopedic enough to be prose. Lists are basically an admission there are not enough sources to write a structured article. WillOakland (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right on the first count, but wrong on the second. Lists are obviously acceptable under WP policy and I don't quite understand your statement that lists indicate the absence of a structured article. There are plenty of examples of lists that have plenty of content for full articles, and yet remain useful as lists. For a good example see List_of_states. In this case the list is a sub of the parent article, Dissociative Identity Disorder. This is, as written, clearly a list. Frankly I don't know the nuance of WP:List policy, so perhaps my statement that it could be a list but not prose was incorrect. But in that case I think it's a keep as a list. Shadowjams (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Lists created to organize and index prose articles are certainly allowed. That's not what this article is. WillOakland (talk) 10:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete the original research in favor of covering the subject in the parent article. WillOakland (talk) 06:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't see how it's original research since it's a collection of objective works that appears to be relatively non-controversial. It might be better sourced, but that's not the same as original research. And while it'd be acceptable to include it in the original article, this list is pretty long and I don't see the advantage to putting it in the original. It should have a link, perhaps with some prose, in the original linking it to this list. Shadowjams (talk) 07:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's original research because it doesn't work from sources about DID in fiction, but directly from the fiction itself. If you thought I was saying that the list be moved back to the main article, you missed the point. WillOakland (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The list is impressive. However, it is really just a collection of information directly from primary sources.  Not an encyclopedia about DID in fiction, with secondary sources, as WP requires -- or should require. Post it to another website, there is life outside of WP. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment to both WillOakland and Northwestgnome: Your definitions of WP:OR are too expansive. As I read through the list I don't see an interpretation of symptoms that culminate in a DID diagnosis--that would certainly be OR if there wasn't a secondary source saying as much. But in a book like Sybil, it's not original research to say the book was about someone with DID (or at least diagnosed as such...I'm not making any comments about whether DID is real as a disease). I don't readily see any "unpublished fact[], argument[], speculation, [or] ideas" here, but if there are they are a small portion of the article. In addition, there are WP:RS provided (some at the bottom) and most of the entries could probably have WP:RS found on them. The fact it's not cited now does not mean it's OR. Shadowjams (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Any problems with this article can be fixed by editing, therefore per WP:DELETION we should not delete it. JulesH (talk) 13:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, no, we can't. "In popular culture" articles which are in list-form like this inherently violate WP:IINFO and WP:5P. Sceptre (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact an article can be improved through editing is not a defacto reason to keep an article. WP:DELETION does not indicate as such. Shadowjams (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't presented any evidence that this article is any worse than many of the other 'in fiction' articles that have consenus to remain. Why is it impossible to treat a discussion of this common fictional trope encyclopedically? JulesH (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A widely used concept in fiction, not always that much related to the "real" dissociative identity disorder, therefore this list-like article is appropriate. --Cyfal (talk) 14:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's not the real DID, it shouldn't be presented as it is. As I said, there may be room in the parent article for discussion about how it's misrepresented/confused for schizophrenia. But a list article like this is problematic for verifiability, accuracy, and encyclopedicity. Sceptre (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then rename it, e.g. Dissassociated identities in fiction, and add at the top of the article a note that many of the representations differ from the real condition in important ways. See: a problem with the articke that can be fixed by editing. JulesH (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, no - it's still synthesis. The article needs to be rewritten. At least as a stub. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (userfy). Synthesis. Plain and simple. All very well the idea of rewriting it, but we can't make up topics, just because they may be worthy/plausible/academically viable. I don't see any sources for "Dissociative Identity Disorder in Fiction". If someone can find them and show it's a notable topic, then I'll strike the delete - Ddawkins73 (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of sources available. See Horvitz Literary Trauma ISBN 0791447111, Korhonen Tropes for the Past ISBN 904201718X,, , Campbell Fiction: 1900 to the 1930s American Literary Scholarship 2004 2002(1):269-307, Hayward Consuming Pleasures ISBN 081312025X, .  If we broaden the discussion to any form of multiple personalities, the sources don't need to be medically reliable. JulesH (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, if the article is renamed. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, on the subject of renaming: I should mention that this is Featured Article on medlab.org :D Or was earlier. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Dissassociated identities in fiction and keep per JulesH. Good suggestion.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  21:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Claiming the right to laziness,) someone (else) needs to turn this into a workable stub if we are to keep. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the rename is a poor choice. Dissociative identity disorder is the DSM name for what is commonly called multiple personality disorder. It's a term of art, and the rephrasing of it, while grammatically correct, alters the reference and makes other claims about the content. It needs to be called a list because that's what it is, but dissassociated identities (unclear if there's any research that uses that term) it is not. Shadowjams (talk) 22:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As it stands, it's OR. Basically, does anyone want to write a stub about this or a related topic? I can't see how we can keep the list, unfortunately, as it's one editor's speculative synthesis. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see discussion above about OR. Shadowjams (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Multiple personalities that are a problem to the protaganist(s) is not the same thing as a Multiple Personality Disorder.
 * It is OR to state that Dr Hyde suffered from Multiple Personality Disorder, yes. Very post 19th century, in fact.
 * "Disorder", "Syndrome" or anything of the kind makes the list very much synthesis. There's a topic to be had, but this list with this title isn't it.
 * I mean, read the first paragraph of Dissociative_identity_disorder and then tell me the diagnosis of Dr Hyde is trivially true.
 * - Ddawkins73 (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A sufficient number of films and other fictional works have in fact been discussed in just these terms(or the previous versions of the terminology,) by very RSs. Therefor a sourced article is easily possible. Its a little absurd to eliminate something which is a critical commonplace and the very basis of multiple well known works. Sufficient specific sources have been given above. A rename discussion belongs elsewhere--I think using the current name is better, because that will be the term used at this point in everything additional that's published, unless the next DSM changes it again a few years ahead. DGG (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but clean it up. Spinach Monster (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think where OR is concerned, an argument in the form of what an article might be is irrelevant, until someone actually changes it. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not according to WP:DELETION it isn't. What the article might practically become is what we should be discussing, not its state as it currently exists. JulesH (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Here's a few observations:
 * I'm not sure I understand the original argument to delete. Is the OP saying that an IPC article about a mental condition is inherently disrespectful?
 * It's not unusual for movie or literary roles to be used as examples of personality disorders in intro psych classes ( i.e. borderline, histrionic, etc ), so there can be a use for this type of information.
 * But as far as DID/MPD, it seems to be used more often as a plot device than implied in the character development, and is usually made very obvious. So I'm on the fence as far as whether this article serves a useful purpose.
 * The argument about whether an IPC aricle on DID is inherently original synthesis is incorrect. To have original research, the article has to contain or deduce some fact or opinion that is only citable to Wikipedia.  The "original research" policy doesn't have anything to do with how the data is organized.
 * If you're saying that lack of scholarship dooms this article to be a list of facts, I agree that it does. To turn it into prose without sources would be original research. To keep it as a list of randomly chosen occurrences would fall under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The conclusion is the same either way. WillOakland (talk)
 * However, some of the individual fictions listed may be original research, if the DID is not plainly obvious in the work and we're the first to suggest it. But a sourced list is possible, WP:DEADLINE applies and see what the critics have to say.  Also something like the Howdunit series may show how character development works with DID. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is pretty close to the point I was trying to make. Most of the examples of this are made plainly obvious in the works so that deducing a diagnosis is so trivial that it would be absurd to consider them OR. I don't think the nuance of the actual DSM diagnosis has any bearing here either--people know what is meant and that's the focus here. If anything that argument suggests a renaming to multiple personalities and not a delete. Shadowjams (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the "usefulness" of this article is not so much in commenting on the real mental disorder, but in the literary criticism field, commenting on the use of multiple personalities as a common plot device. That's the angle most if not all of the references I provided above approach the subject from. JulesH (talk) 08:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up. Not sure OR really applies here.  Vartanza (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, as I am unconvinced this article is unsalvagable. The original synthesis argument does not apply to lists like this, as no novel conclusion is being made. It's plain as day that characters with DID are common in fictional works, and reliable coverage of the issue is extant (see above). Nor is there any immediatist compulsion to delete here; we can afford to give time to articles pertaining to fictional topics to get it right, while the same is not true of BLPs for example. To summarize, this is a topic on which an encyclopaedic article conforming to the five pillars can be written, and there exists no strong rationale to delete. Skomorokh  23:52, 18 February 2009 (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.