Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The truman show delusion


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The truman show delusion

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

The disorder is not officially recognized by American Psychiatric Association, as the article admits. I thus have concerns about its notability. I'm not sure whether WP:CRYSTAL applies here - while it is not officially recognized, it's simply a term used in a book by two non-notable psychologists. &amp;dorno rocks. (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep As measured by coverage in independent and reliable publications, it's notable and, and the article is sourced.  A lack of official recognition by the APA doesn't, in my opinion, make any difference.  Whether people think this is legit, or nonsense, it's gotten notice. Mandsford (talk) 18:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the article generally presents it as "legit", whereas this is not backed by the respected scientific community. Has it been mentioned in any scholarly publications. I can only find this through google, and it's a media studies, not a psychology paper. If the disorder has received no academic recognition, the article needs to be fundamentally rewritten to make it clear that its existence as a disorder distinct from psychosis is speculative. &amp;dorno rocks. (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that it needs a rewrite, including the title, and hopefully it someone will add (within the article) that it's not recognized. I did the Google scholar search as well, and I have the same misgivings (the two shrinks seem to report their case studies in newspapers rather than in peer-reviewed journals).  I don't think that it should be deleted.  I'll be the first to say that I have no interest in editing the article, even with a ten foot pole.  However, I think that the topic is notable enough for an article. Mandsford (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Per multiple reliable and independent sources with substantial coverage found at Google News archive, which satisfy WP:N. Wikipedia is not just a mirror of some manual from the "American Psychological Association." See in particular The New York Times(2008) which says ""The Truman Show Delusion, or Truman Syndrome, has drawn attention in recent months, in the United States and Britain, as psychiatrists in both countries describe a small but growing number of psychotic patients who describe their lives as mirroring that of the main character in the 1998 film 'The Truman Show.'" See also Newsweek (2008). I have moved the article to a title with conventional capitalization. Edison (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Edit/Change I'm sorry, but there is no substantial evidence to support keeping this article. First and foremost delusions are a psychiatric symptom NOT a disease/disorder. For example, paranoid/persecutory delusions, are classical SYMPTOMS of psychosis and grandiose delusions are an archetypal SYMPTOM for mania. However, delusions are as varied as they come and their extent and diversity are limitless. It is useless to try and describe the CONTENT of every single delusion in detail as it holds very little diagnostic or clinical value. Certain delusions seem to be very common, especially that of "mind reading", "mind control" and "thought implantation" and these have been described in the literature only because they are very commonly associated with schizophrenia and other schizophrenic psychoses. Although the pop-culture allure of this "disease" is unmistakable, it is simply not medically relevant. At most this could warrant an entry under a Popular Culture section in the Delusion article or could be noted as a subtype of paranoid/persecutory delusion. Wikipedia's coverage in psychiatry is already very confusing and keeping this article would contribute to that confusion and would be downright negligent.
 * Update Although this article almost certainly should not be kept in its current form, I think deleting it may be a bit drastic. However, my arguments above still hold true and this article definitely needs to change. It must be made clear that this article is based on original research (violates WP:NOR) and is therefore unverifiable. Furthermore, it is a non-notable (cf. WP:BIO) medical topic more suited to pop-culture and should be contextualized as such. --JacoNiel (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2010 (UTC) — JacoNiel (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This user's two edits to this AfD are their only contributions to Wikipedia. The account appears to have been created specifically to post the above comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that the nominator was recently blocked for being a sockpuppet of Jeromels, this kind of cautious skepticism is certainly warranted. — Rankiri (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This may be my first (formal) contribution - I have anonymously edited many articles before - however, discrediting me does not alter the content and/or validity of my argument (cf.argumentum ad hominem). If it helps, I would be willing to rewrite this article in order to contextualize it. --JacoNiel (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Seems to have third-party coverage. Questionable nominator helps me lean to keep. &mdash; Timneu22 · talk 14:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep There's plenty of mentions - but I'm not completely sure if this amounts to 'coverage'. Not being recognised by whoever doesn't always mean non-notable - as with Rupert Sheldrake's theories. Equally, I've seen some quite valid editing by socks. If the article fails later, a return to AfD can be made by someone who is bare-handed... Peridon (talk) 20:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The articles cited sre from reliable sources (NYTimes and WebMD), and are sufficient to determine notability. I've cleaned up the article a bit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:54, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Added two more sources (Newsweek, National Post) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:38, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And another from the British Journal of Psychiatry. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong keep in current form I have expanded the article as fully as possible (removed stub-tag). Edited intro, added two new sections to contextualize, renamed "Examples" -> "Reported Cases" and "Film" -> "Trivia". Changed from Psychology project to Psychiatry. Added internal links where possible and cited a new academic source.
 * I hope the edit is satisfactory? May I propose an exit from AfD? --JacoNiel (talk) 01:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, your edits did not improve the article, and I have reverted them. Please discuss any further edits on the talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)  I'm going to work on your version, which has problems, but which adds some good stuff. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Mmm... I did not mean to offend - am quite new to this. However, that previous article was simply over-hyped and misleading IMHO. Leading people to believe that reality TV shows might cause delusions is unethical so it must be emphasized that it merely shapes a pre-existing condition or one that would have developed anyway. --


 * Sorry, I over-reacted. We cannot do anything medically "unethical" since we are not doctors or psychologists, we are editors of an encyclopedia. As long as we accurately report what authoritative sources say, we are fine. If there is confusion between the authorities on whether this is a "delusion" or a "syndrome" that's for them to sraighten out, not for us to decide who is correct. We simply report what these authorities say. That said, I've fixed up your version a bit, and restored some of the information you deleted (it was sourced, and relevant, so you should not have done that), and I can live with the existing version. Any further discussion should not take place here, but on the article's talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My point is just that when it comes to anything medically related - the general media is heinous in abusing 'interesting' or 'fun' medical terms and advocating all kinds of crap. An encyclopedia should be a bit more respectable and responsible than that. Many, many people read and view WP as an authoritative source. A 'syndrome' implies a SET of symptoms and a delusion, no matter how complex or convoluted, can only ever be seen as a single symptom. Moreover the reference for this 'syndrome' is a case-study! Which amounts to just about the weakest level of evidence a study can achieve. A conclusion of a case study is only good for prompting more research. Come to think of it, this entire article is based a newspaper reports, on-line blogs and magazine articles, which all amount to absolutely nothing. Once again I apologize if I am out of line, but it's exactly articles like this one that confuse the general public with regards to medicine. JacoNiel (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to have over-reacted as well. I'll sleep on it a bit, maybe I can come up with a resolution. JacoNiel (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2010 (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.