Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electroconvulsive therapy controversy

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 - While the electroconvulsive therapy controversy topic may be legitimate (see Missed seizures and the bilateral-unilateral electroconvulsive therapy controversy), Electroconvulsive therapy first sentence states "Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) ... is a controversial psychiatric treatment." That supports the below position that Electroconvulsive therapy controversy is an unnecessary content fork of electroconvulsive therapy. No evidence has been presented that this article was an agreed upon spinoff from Electroconvulsive therapy or agreed upon spinoff from any other article. Rather than addresses the major aspects of the controversaries surrounding electroconvulsive therapy, consensus is that this fork improperly goes into unnecessary details. -- Jreferee t/c 16:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electroconvulsive therapy controversy

Electroconvulsive therapy controversy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Reason There isn't really an entity called "the electroconvulsive therapy controversy" (although the treatment is controversial). Controversial aspects of the treatment should be covered in the main article. Staug73 14:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. POV fork = bad. There's not even a link back to the parent. --UsaSatsui 14:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• keep Controversry does not belong in the main article, minority and majority opinion do. See Big Jim's opinion on this topic. Also see fringe opinion under NPOV. For issues such as often recited contention that ECT causes brain damage ECT controversy is the place for such material to be aired out.--scuro 15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - this is biased and a lot of it is untrue. Should be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.55.213 (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep. The first rationale is irrelevant. If we need to have an article, we have to call it something, and by convention the name is agreed on by editor consensus. If you don't like the name, start a move request and get input on a better one. The second one is subjective. The rule should never be to stuff everything into one article. The rule should be to split out subarticles where material is inappropriately overwhelming the article. In this case, electroconvulsive therapy itself looks to be somewhere good to very good in terms of referencing and coverage. This article isn't a break-out section, though, it's something of a WP:POVFORK, and needs improvement to either merge relevant material into the main article or combine it with other material to make a more neutral presentation of the sourced material that is already there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhartung (talk • contribs) 16:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Delete. Although I would agree that controversial aspects should be listed on the main page of the article, there is justification because POV may play an issue. However, a separate article is not needed, as it is possible to remain neutral while explaining the controversy of the treatments. Using its talk page would be the best place to discuss this. As such, I support the nomination to delete the article and have it merged with the main one. MasterXC 16:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge any useful content into Electroconvulsive therapy, and how much is "useful" is debatable. Although the article is sourced, and there is a disagreement over this type of treatment, the writing leaves a lot to be desired. The article opens the controversy with : "A study by Freeman and Kendell (1980) found two deaths out of 183 ECT patients at Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Scotland, in 1976. That gives a death rate of a little over one per cent." Maybe "that" does, maybe not. How did they die? Electrocution? Suicide? Did Freeman and Kendell draw a conclusion, or did the author divide 2/183. This looks like part of a college student's term paper rather than an encylcopedia article Mandsford 16:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 18:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete after merging any useful content to Electroconvulsive therapy. Like Mandsford, I am wary of how much of this is unwarranted conclusions drawn from the referenced data. The main article would be the best place to develop a neutral and balanced account of the various criticisms of ECT. Espresso Addict 19:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge+redirect any useful contents to Electroconvulsive therapy#Adverse effects, per dhartung, mandsford and the espresso addict --Victor falk 21:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• delete in the rare event it contains anything useful that's not already there, merge that to the ECT article.Merkinsmum 22:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, POV fork. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge If this is a fork then it should be de-forked. Deletion would be POV pushing the same as if it were a deletion from the main page. - perfectblue 17:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Undo fork The process cannot be "fork content, delete POV fork". This stuff needs to be merged back into the parent article and/or it's content discussed on that articles talk page. A mere deletion of this page won't suffice. The fork shouldn't be deleted until the content is settled on the parent article. zoney ♣ talk 22:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree strongly. Just deleting is sweeping the problem under the carpet, and begging for it starting all over again in the future.--Victor falk 23:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• commentYou can put things on a controversy page that wouldn't make it on to a main page in the form seen on the controversy page. Why? Since the topic is controversy you can explore "controversial" issues in greater depth. The viewpoint on the issue may be neither minority or majority opinion. Secondly, not as many editors care as much about the controversy page so some of the stuff sticks to the page even though it probably shouldn't be there. Controversy often also has "fringe" opinions or poorly cited opinions that rarely offer good secondary sources to support these opinions. You may also see story telling....a linkage of ideas to create narrative masquerading as fact. If the article is deleted, it shouldn't be assumed that the content will stick on the main ECT page.--scuro 03:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Just delete it. Too much cleanup to find any merge-able content. It's not worth saving. Cool Hand Luke 05:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This can stay as a Psychiatric abuse topic, in addition to article Electroconvulsive therapy which describes this as "legitimate" treatment.Biophys 06:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
• Merge - Of course ECT is controversial! This article is a POV fork. Take out the cruft and merge it into the ECT aritcle as suggested by perfectblue et al. Bearian 01:11, 19 October 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.