Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maladaptive daydreaming (2nd 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. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Maladaptive daydreaming
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previous deletion decided in Oct 2017 deletion discussion but not carried out Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)


 * wavering delete It seems to be a possible syndrome or part of other behaviour syndromes. Research gate and British Journal have said that it may or not be! Case of wp:too soon.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Contrary to the nom's claim, the previous deletion was carried out (log entry).  A new article bearing no resemblance to the deleted page was created about a year later. SpinningSpark 01:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for finding that out.I did wonder what happened. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose In the previous discussion, a good arguement for deletion was made by editors. Not the case here. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 08:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The first AFD did not have particular "good arguement for deletion".  The nom was based on two things.  Firstly that "only" three papers not by Somer had been published.  Well, three independent, in depth sources would normally be enough for us, so I'm not seeing the policy-based rationale there.  Three years on I'm seeing a lot more than three papers besides the continuing highly productive Somer and his acolytes.  They include this overview paper debating whether or not the disorder is a real thing. a sure sign that the topic has become notable.  The second rationale put forward, and being given another outing here, is that it is not a recognised diagnosis.  While that should probably be given more prominence in the article than it currently has, it makes not the slightest difference to the notability of the subject.  I would also raise the question; not recognised by who?  It probably just means that it's not recognised for the purpose of medical insurance claims in the US, rather than the medical profession consider it quackery.  It certainly seems to be recognised by a growing band of practitioners. SpinningSpark 09:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I took it to mean not recognized by any psychiatric manual or professional organisation. It's not in the new ICD-11 for instance. APA and international equivalents don't recognize it, ie it's a proposed diagnosis. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge Daydreaming being maladaptive is a matter of circumstance and degree. The issue seems to be a significant aspect of the main article on daydreaming and it's not lcear that there's a need for a split yet.  Anyway, there seems to be ample scope for development of the topic(s) and so deletion is not appropriate per WP:ATD-M, &c.  See Empirical Studies on Daydreaming for more details. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP I click Google news and find ample results covering this. https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/xyde8d/when-does-obsessive-daydreaming-become-a-mental-illness-en-id https://fox6now.com/2016/12/30/maladaptive-daydreaming-when-fantasies-become-a-nightmare-2/ https://www.popsci.com/maladaptive-daydreaming/ Plenty more of that.  I happen to have this condition although I didn't nkow its name until reading the article.   D r e a m Focus  17:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Medical conditions are not notable unless they receive broad coverage in the medical press. Looking at the appropriate sources in total there are 14 papers in medical journals. Of these the majority are related to E Somer, there seems to be a lack of independent medical coverage. There were no specific reviews on the topic by independent psychiatrists. As such this should not be considered a notable disorder. Without independent medical sources it is frankly impossible to judge its significance is there isn't independent medical evaluation. The very flowery language is a key indicator and immediately makes me find this wholly unconvincing. I would say that from reading the article a far more parsimonious explanation is that it's actually a dissociative disorder, and certainly the proposed symptoms appear to fit completely into that diagnosis. PainProf (talk) 04:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you only looking at papers actually cited in the article, or have you looked elsewhere? I found numerous medical journal published papers that seem to be independent of Somer, and largely independent of each other .  Also, I would count this as a review paper.  Wouldn't you?  In any case, I can't agree with you that broad coverage in the medical press is required for notability (on Wikipedia) of a condition.  Something can still be notable under GNG due to coverage outside of the medical press, for instance this Wall Street Journal article, but I would agree that a lack of medical coverage would mean we should be cautious in how we cover it. SpinningSpark 11:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I discounted the review as it isn't a peer reviewed journal it's an external newsletter (a fancy blog). The bar for medical sourcing is high. There are no medical sources here that aren't primary. This would be expected. This is routine coverage in the medical field and not a particularly large amount. We would therefore be left with no sources once we bring it to compliance. Non primary sources in academic journals and psychiatry journals would be expected of a notable diagnosis. It's possible it could be redirected to dissociation disorder (day dreaming being a mild form of dissociation) but I worry that's a point of view or to daydreaming if described as a largely cultural diagnosis rather than a medical diagnosis and provide links to dissociation disorder. Much of the rather turgid papers that Somers puts out are describing how it can't possibly be the same as dissociation disorder and is unique so it's possible the entire thing is a neologism created for notoriety. The newspaper articles largely rely on Somers and are not particularly independent. That it isn't recognised by DSM is a serious consideration as DSM is quite expansive. Overall I still can't see a viable path for improvement or general notability of the diagnosis. It

It shouldn't be necessary to split hairs with weak sourcing for medical articles. We could draftify it and if you can find sufficient medical sources then it could be moved back. PainProf (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep the review article does it for me as far as GNG is concerned. However, I don't think that strict MEDRS is necessary in this case as it's not a recognized medical condition; the article can simply state that and rely on coverage from non-MEDRS compliant sources without misleading readers. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments: How is MEDRS ("strict" or not)--- not applicable? The "condition" is posited as being a construct, uses the MDS- 16, Maladaptive Daydreaming Scale (revised MDS- 14), and is being pushed to be recognized. While it cannot be used as an "official" classification it is considered a "compulsive fantasy activity", a form of maladaptive behavior, which is a psychiatric condition or disorder, that is considered a form of mental illness. IF this subject is considered to fall within the criteria of "human health" it would seem it should absolutely fall under the criteria of MEDRS. --  Otr500 (talk) 11:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficiently sourced, the condition is also mentioned in books - . The older AfD is not applicable to this version. However, it needs to be mentioned that it is not completely accepted as a true condition. Hzh (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.