Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renfield's syndrome


 * 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 and move to Clinical vampirism. Sandstein (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Renfield's syndrome
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Sorry to who wrote this but I don't think it qualifies as notable, having been a name proposed by one psychologist in a book he authored on the subject. I could find anywhere where it was supported as a valid syndrome outside this author's work. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep you cant just read the article, you have to do some research. GNews Archive: has hits for the term. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok that's 5 hits - 2 local news bites, and 2 writers and a something. The Yarbro link doesn't mention it. Nothing that thrills me as a reputable source really but I'll go on consensus. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep. The syndrome seems to be real, but it needs more references outside the already existing one. If this is a real syndrome, there will be other reliable sources to prove it really exists. If the only suitable source is the work by one author, the article should be deleted. --clpo13(talk) 01:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definitely a realand notable syndrome (Even featured on an episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit if I recall correctly). Spawn Man Review Me! 01:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO or possibly merge to Vampire lifestyle, emphasizing that it is a psychiatric disorder. The medical literature does not support this name for the disorder, and classifies this behaviour as either a psychosis or a paraphilia dependent on other patient-specific factors. I could find no references for this syndrome on two subscription-only but very expansive medical databases.  Risker (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * (See my note below about possible merge to Clinical vampirism) Risker (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per Risker, and note to Spawn Man, I tried to find evidence of an SVU episode mentioning this and couldn't. --- tqbf  04:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep or possibly move to "clinical vampirism" or another name; see five books that mention it. Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, though the most authoritative-looking book mentions it as the preferred future label of a condition rather than something alrady in existence.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Reply to tqbf - No, it was in there, but it wasn't a main plot element. I was just pointing out that it isn't unheard of and does merit inclusion. My Google searches -wikipedia turned up nearly 2000 hits, so it shows it's not completely NN. Further searching revealed that it had been on the show CSI, and also found this, but I'm not sure how cemented the sources are. After about an hour of searching, I also found out that the Renfield's mention was in the SVU Season 5 epidsode, "Control", although I can't find any online sources as yet (Maybe someone who knows where to look can find it quicker). Hope this helps, but yeah, I still feel it's worth keeping on the site. Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 04:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep 2000 Ghits make it hard to argue that it's a neologism. Risker's hypothesis (unlike Renfield's syndrome) may not pass peer review :-).  To use Risker's own words from another page, the allegation of neologism is based on irrelevant information with no significance from sources unknown.  Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence.  This topic isn't something made up one day.  Improve the article -- don't delete it.  --Ssbohio (talk) 05:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Read the article and you will see that the term is something someone made up one day, although at this point nobody has located a reference showing that Richard Noll did indeed use this term. His work that related to vampirism was published in the early 1990s, but still no discussion of the term in mainstream medical or psychology sources; in fact the majority of those 2000 Ghits are from the "vampires are cool" crowd and may well be the repetition of an urban legend. And Ssbohio, if you have a problem with me, then it is between the two of us. Please have more respect for the rest of the editors who are focusing on the purpose of this AfD rather than carrying a grudge. Risker (talk) 12:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Even urban legends can be notable, and my good-faith belief is that this article needs improvement rather than deletion. My only problem is with your apparent preference to destroy what could be improved instead, not with you personally.  I felt that using your own words in my Keep !vote was an eloquent commentary on your approach.  I'm glad to discuss any interpersonal issues in the appropriate forum. --Ssbohio (talk) 15:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete:When you do the google seach with quotes, to get only Renfield's syndrome, I get only 766 hits. However, when I do the same search in pubmed, the free online database managed by the U.S. National Institutes of Health, which keeps track of all medical research, I get no hits at all.  That is, there is absolutely zero peer-reviewed, scientific research that uses this term.  There may be books by someone trying to introduce this term, and subsequent interviews, but this is not a scientific concept. By comparison, Capgras syndrome, which is an accepted medical diagnosis, although a rare condition, gets 441 hits on PubMed. Ssbohio, not to put too fine a point on it, but it seems that Renfield's syndrome has not passed peer review.  This is not a term that people working in the field are using, and therefore does qualify as a neologism, and certainly does not qualify as notable.  Edhubbard (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that I did the same test but with "Renfields syndrome" (Note the absense of the ') and got 2000 on google; there could just be a mispelling. JSYK (If you'd managed to click the link I provided above!) :). Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 07:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No matter how you spell it, there are no hits in PubMed. That is, no peer review, no reliable sources.  Whether it's 766 or 2000 Ghits, it's still zero peer-reviwed, independent, reliable sources. Edhubbard (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Who cares if it is a recognized medical condition or just a term used in fiction, and in newspapers and books? Wikipedia isn't a medical encyclopedia. Your search isn't relevant. So long as it is defined in books and newspapers thats all that matters. And certainly Crime Library is a reliable source. Your argument is the same as saying since we can't prove God exists, we shouldn't have articles on God. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I note your recent additional reference sources. We are still at the point where Richard Noll is the only medical expert to be reported using this term anywhere, and the reference sources themselves talk about the syndrome as clinical vampirism. With that in mind, I would support merging this article with Clinical vampirism with Renfield's syndrome redirecting there. Risker (talk) 16:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Clinical vampirism is an empty redirect to this, what article are you talking about? Again, why would any reader care if a medical expert uses, or doesn't use the term? Its irrelevant. We don't need NASA's blessing to write about UFO's. The Greek Gods don't have to really exist to have articles on them. Your confusing truth with reliability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Clinical vampirism is the more accepted term and appears in more quality references. The article should be rewritten to reflect this, with a note that Noll has given it the name Renfield's syndrome. Risker (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because that would fail Wikipedia's notability and undue weight rule. If you treat this as a work of fiction, it cannot satisfy that requirement since it is not notable enough to stand on its own. If you are not trying to write this from the perspective of fiction, it would fail WP:INUNIVERSE. This article is unsalvageable and should be deleted. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not following your logic. What Universe would this be exactly? Undue weight to what POV? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - That sources mention but do not describe this term, fails WP:NEO. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You must be reading a different article than I am. Even the CSI link has a definition for it, the crime library article titled Renfields, runs for a full page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's become pretty clear that you're determined to shrug off this encyclopedia's most basic protocols to advance your own agenda so I won't respond (and I would advise others not to as well) to your baseless arguments. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What protocol? Please be specific. Your using vague generalities, not citing specific rules and regulations. I am using all secondary and tertiary sources, so I am not sure how Universe applies. I also don't know what "undue weight" is in the article, again you are just using generalities, and not pointing to text in the article or a violation of a specific rule in the "undue weight" rules. You need to be specific and quote the article, and then quote the rules so it is apparent to me, and others reading your comments. What point of view am I pushing with undue weight, I just don't follow your logic. If you still can't see the definitions, here are the main references used in the article with the definitions in bold for ease of location. I can't cut an paste the CSI one its a flash window, and cant be cut and pasted, you will have to click on it yourself. Cheers.  BTW, I don't have an agenda. I just came here from the deletion notice and added some references. I do find it ironic that your expending more keystrokes here arguing for deletion, than keystrokes to improve the article.


 * Keep I think although the research is preliminary, the syndrome can be recognized in some cases (even if they are sometimes diagnosed as schizophrenia or other mental disorders, see Neville Heath). The syndrome is mentioned in some notable works of fiction and medicine (whether Richard Noll is taken seriously or not, he is a psychiatrist) and that provides notability. --– sampi ( talk • contrib • email ) —Preceding comment was added at 03:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly where does anything on Neville Heath indicate that he was suffering from Renfield's syndrome? Risker (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I was leery when I first saw the article, but as I reviewed the article, it was clear that there are red-blooded reliable sources to support the term and its usage, thus satisfying the Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 06:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe the article supplies enough sources to support notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY, possibly rename as noted above. Bearian (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY too... but it should be renamed to "Clinical Vampirism" because that phrase shows up in book searches but the current article title gets no traction. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2007 (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.