Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dissociative identity disorder in popular culture


 * 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 delete. This is a weird one. There's broad consensus to delete, but looking deeper, most people are saying, The topic is, at least potentially, a good one to write about, but this particular article is such a mess it needs to go. If this was a regular article, applying WP:TNT by pruning it back to a stub might make sense, but I don't see how that works with a list.

I think what makes the most sense is to delete this for now, with no prejudice against somebody recreating it (either in list or prose form), if they can address the issues raised in this AfD. If somebody wants to take a shot at that, I'll be happy to undelete and userfy the current content. Based on the comments here, that probably wouldn't be so much a starting point, but more a source of ideas and things worth discussing.

-- RoySmith (talk) 18:33, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder in popular culture

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This Article only contains Original Reserches. No evidence of the importance of this theme. Some isolated facts without sources collected in one article. 3rd nomination. MVSSuccubus (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This deletion discussion wasn't logged so I just added it to the log today. Previous nominations: Articles for deletion/MPD in fiction and Articles for deletion/Dissociative identity disorder in fiction. Opencooper (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Opencooper (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Quoting from the 2007 AFD, "This list doesn't contain any sourced analysis. Making a list that associates all the fictional works that have MPD is unpublished synthesis from published works, violating WP:OR. [If] this is not original research then it is a directory of loosely associated topics, violation WP:NOT" Almost 10 years later and I'd say the same rationale still applies. It's still a predominantly unsourced laundry list of works that aren't connected or listed together in reliable sources, and inclusion is based on loosely associated plot points.  —PermStrump  ( talk )  06:08, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: I mentioned this AfD at WT:Psych —PermStrump  ( talk )  06:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete After looking over this list, I stand by the comments I made in 2007. List items should be meaningfully connected. This topic might have potential to be a proper article, not a list, if some one can find proper sources for a detailed analysis. What we have here does not satisfy our inclusion criteria. Jay32183 (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Some sources found:
 * Beware of the Other Side(s) Multiple Personality Disorder and Dissociative Identity Disorder in American Fiction
 * Top 10 children's books about multiple personalities in the Guardian
 * The Media and Dissociative Identity Disorder in Psychology Today
 * The 15 Best Movies About Multiple Personality Disorder
 * So there are some sources out there that could be used for developing this list. --Mark viking (talk) 03:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: As an additional comment I would point out that while the article has serious issues with WP:OR, this alone is not a justification for removing the theme as non-notable. The previous AFD in 2009 was very much mixed and I would like to see consensus on the notability of the theme before I at least could take a decision to delete the topic. KaisaL (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. The topic of Dissociative identity disorder in popular culture is undoubtedly a notable one.  However, I don't think an indiscriminate list like this is the way to go.  The items on the list all lack proper WP:IPC secondary sources, as required by the WP:NOR policy.  So, although I think that in principle we could have an article (even a list) about this topic, it does not seem that ten years of incubation has resolved the problems with the present list.  If anyone wants to add secondary sources, and remove the items lacking secondary sources, then I would be willing to vote keep.  Otherwise, I don't see anything in the present list that should be kept, leaving delete as the only reasonable outcome at present.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 11:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:56, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - The TOPIC is clearly notable. The topic, as a category that notable sources like to list things, has been demonstrated above to be notable.  If the article sucks right now, well, a good starting point would be to blank it and start over with the references linked above... but note I say BLANK and start over, not DELETE (WP:TNT) and start over, specifically because I think the history of the page would be valuable to future editors trying to expand the list. However, I'm not convinced that the list really sucks that much right now.  Okay, sure, it doesn't use enough secondary sources, but if the work of fiction itself uses the words "Dissociative Identity Disorder", I think that would just barely be enough for our primary source criteria (that you don't synthesize or reinterpret what the primary source says).  And I highly suspect that most, if not all, of these items on the list meet that criteria.  Sure, secondary sources are always preferred, but there is allowance for primary sources in certain circumstances.
 * Granted still, there are plenty of items on the list that do NOT specifically say "Dissociative Identity Disorder" or "Multiple Personality Disorder" and DO perform synthesis and original research... these items should clearly be removed. But the article as a whole, I must !vote keep. Fieari (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We aren't talking about the topic, we're talking about the article. This article fails the inclusion criteria. There is no point in retaining this history for a different article, as this content would not be used to produce it. Your comment about the primary sources shows you didn't understand my objection to the list. It's not that the we don't have sources to say the items on the list mention DID, it's that we don't have sources to say that the items are related enough to each other to justify a list. The whole directory of loosely associated topics thing. Also keep in mind, burden of evidence is on those wishing to keep; "Someone might fix the article at sometime in someway" is not justification to keep. Jay32183 (talk) 14:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - The subject matter is certainly one that could very likely have a good, sourced article on it. This particular article, however, is not it.  Its just a massive, mostly unsourced list of trivia and original research with no meaningful analysis.  There's no real reason to keep this article around until a better one is created. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as it's all still unsourced or undersourced research, nothing convincing. SwisterTwister   talk  07:48, 9 July 2016 (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.