Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megalomaniac paranoia


 * 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   merge to Megalomania. Black Kite 00:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Megalomaniac paranoia

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Megalomaniac paranoia is the colloqual name for somebody with a combination of narcissistic personality disorder and paranoid personality disorder. "Megalomaniac paranoia" is not defined anywhere medically, such as in the DSM or ICD. The possibilities of various personality disorder combinations are covered in the individual personality disorder articles anyway. The diagnoses given of famous people having "megalomaniac paranoia" are not authoritative even if "megalomaniac paranoia" was a medically recognized term. The whole article is completely flaky pseudo science and baloney. "Megalomaniac paranoia" is a non scientific colloquial expression. The reference to Dementia praecox is a red herring, "Dementia praecox" is an obsolete medical term anyway.--Penbat (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If "megalomaniac paranoia" was a medically recognized term, which now is considered obsolete, than it's interesting to cover the history and supposed dismissal of this term, not to delete the article. Can you mention sources to add to the article?--Sum (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Theoretically it could be a keep if it was a tightly focused article on the history of "megalomaniac paranoia". I dont have any sources for this and i think at present the article is completely misleading. I think that historically "megalomaniac paranoia" has been associated with schizophrenia and paranoia but these days it would be considered a mix of paranoia and narcissism (narcissism being a modern concept). Megalomania has similar issues and is a historical condition but it couldnt be deleted as it is still widely used as a colloquial word. --Penbat (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that this link is where the idea that "megalomania is discussed in DSM-IV" came from. Certainly "grandiosity" is mentioned in DSM-IV as a symptom of various disorders. It is ambiguous whether the author is saying that the word "megalomania" actually appears in DSM-IV or if he is just providing a synonym for grandiosity. I would be surprised if "megalomania" appeared anywhere in DSM-IV and if it did it would just be as another word for grandiosity as a symptom of various disorders and certainly not as a defined disorder. This supports the idas that "megalomania" should be merged with the Grandiose delusions article with "megalomania" as a redirect to Grandiose delusions. There is no reference to megalomania in DSM-IV Codes which lists the names of all the DSM mental disorders.--Penbat (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to editions of the DSM. Do you know if it discusses the combination of narcissism/grandiose with paranoia?--Sum (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Some DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria text is in Wikipedia. Grandiose Type is mentioned as a subtype of delusional disorder (see Delusional_disorder). Grandiosity is also as an important feature of Narcissistic personality disorder see Narcissistic_personality_disorder. There is a separate persecutory subtype for delusional disorder and combinations of disorders such as paranoia and narcissism are quite possible but there is no single combined grandiose and paranoid disorder in DSM-IV. --Penbat (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I am still in favour of deletion. I dont want to put words into Sums mouth but he is not exactly strongly advocating keeping. --Penbat (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

Nothing wrong with having more people involved, but from the discussion side, i dont think there is much to be said to justify keeping the article unless somebody can find a good source that would describe paranoid megalomania as a historical illness. The material currently in the article is completely misleading.--Penbat (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the article should be kept. The expression "Megalomaniac paranoia" has been used multiple times, at least in the past, so it's interesting to have an article which documents it and puts it into context. In the discussion so far I've only seen arguments for the improvement of the article, not its removal.--Sum (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It could be categorised as "Category:Obsolete medical terms" like dementia praecox and the text needs reorienting as an obsolete historical illness. As there is very little useful info of this nature I am aware of, it will end up very short, maybe 2 paras instead of 4. The entire text could be as short as 2 sentences, one of them just saying that Thomas Pynchon used the expression in one of his books.--Penbat (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is currently short but certainly more sources exists on the subject. We just have to wait that over time more users will come and add them, as naturally happens in Wikipedia. Is there any rush?--Sum (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you name a couple of those sources that "certainly" exist? Optimistic handwaving isn't sufficient for an AfD discussion.  If we can't identify actual high-quality reliable sources, then we have to let the article go.  (Articles can be re-created in the future if someone actually finds sources.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done quite a lot of Google trawling and apparently Freud and Jung discussed "megalomania" (in the sense of grandiosity and omnipotence) but have found next to nothing more recent by any psychologist. These days in psychology, "megalomania" is just referred to as "grandiosity" which is just a symptom of several diverse psychiatric disorders. I have drawn a complete blank on the use of "megalomaniac paranoia" by any psychologist. --Penbat (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Right i have trimmed and refocused Megalomaniac paranoia. If you are happy with it, I will cancel this deletion request. --Penbat (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It is obsolete because there is no evidence it has ever been even mentioned in any DSM. Rather than have crap in this article i would prefer it if it was deleted. --Penbat (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Delete and merge any relevant cited content into the megalomania article. A symptom of a condition almost always does not reach the threshold of notability.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  14:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense to me. It can also be argued that megalomania should be merged into delusions of grandeur as most of the content is about that anyway. Megalomania is also currently just an alternative name for a symptom (grandiosity) but more notable than Megalomaniac paranoia--Penbat (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "Symptom of a condition almost always does not reach the threshold of notability": this is a consideratrion from a medical point of view, on whose validity medical experts may disagree. The subject is not specific to the medical field, but it has also historical and literary relevance.--Sum (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No it's not Sum, first of all I am not a medical doctor, it is a consideration based on WP:COMMONSENSE. It is a poorly referenced article and we can not have lots of stubs of each individual significant symptom of a condition, be it societal, medical, psychological etc.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not a medical article. It's an article on an expression that has been used in history and literature.--Sum (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning: Votestacking. It seems to me that posts Help needed on Megalomaniac paranoia (also here) by Penbat qualifies as Votestacking for his deletion request. Literaturegeek has joined the vote as a result.--Sum (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is appropriate to post in wiki projects. Votestacking is contacting individual editors who you know or think will vote in a specific direction. I am going to assume good faith for the moment that you do not understand wikipedia policies and guidelines and have not read them.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It qualifies as votestacking because it is limited to medical wikiprojects, whose users are more likely to delete it because Megalomaniac paranoia is not addressed by current medical literature. And the way in which is formulated, it explicitly asks for "help" for his "deletion request". It has also been posted only now instead of at the beginning of the process.--Sum (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Please back up your claim by citing where in the policy that notifying a Wiki project is vote stacking. Also what is to stop you going to another wiki project which you do not think is biased and asking them?-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  17:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I obviously only asked for "help" now because so far it has just been my opinion against yours and it increasingly looked like nobody else would get involved to sway the vote one way or another to reach a resolution. On the project page i simply asked for more opinions. I then said in the next sentence what my view was. There is no way i could have known in advance whether any new opinions would be supportive or not.--Penbat (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge anything useful to megalomania, delete rather than redirect the article as not a notable search term, merely two adjectives linked. And I am a doctor. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge anything useful per Casliber, and then redirect as an obsolete medical term. Though I am not a doctor. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 23:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Casliber (who is a doctor, but hasn't spotted that 'paranoia' is a noun :D ). There is one quality reference (Domingo) but the full text only seems to be freely available here – in Spanish. My poor Spanish is enough to indicate that Domingo says "For example el delirio megalomaníaco is traditionally considered a symptom ...", but never combines it with la paranoia. This may have value in the Megalomania article, but doesn't support the medical notability of this article. --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge and delete the page as a sum of parts. Megalomania and paranoia has to be a really tiny set.  Kind of like influenza and gout:  one person can have both at the same time, but that doesn't make the combination a discrete medical condition.  Thomas Pynchon is a world class writer in part because he can write nonsense that takes on a reality of its own.  No doubt he could describe a compelling gouty influenza.  If there is any article lurking here, it is about Pynchon's concept of a "paranoid megalomaniac", but that would be a topic for a comp lit essay, not an encyclopedia, because at this point I doubt there exists even one reliable secondary source.  --Una Smith (talk) 05:21, 17 November 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.