Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MPD in fiction

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 No Concensus, strong suggestion to cleanup and consider renaming. Davewild (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MPD in fiction

MPD in fiction (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Trivial dumping ground. Wikipedia isn't a directory. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Weak Delete Its a useful plot device and it would be useful to have an article describing it, but is this listcruft. scope_creep (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep The pretentious "MPD in fiction" title (improved by some psychology major to DID/MPD in fiction) refers to "multiple personality disorder". The only reason that I would say to keep an article like this is because it has no place within an article about the real thing. As with things like side effects of radiation exposure, or amnesia caused by head trauma, the Hollywood version of multiple personality disorder is unrealistic. "Weak" keep because this septic tank article doesn't really speak to the difference. Mandsford (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong keep and retitle to the full name. Whether the Hollywood version is realistic is totally besides the point. The rationale of the article is that this is not merely a subsidiary plot device, but the basis of the plot of multiple important books and movies. As for the manga and so on, those who know those media should comment. The themes of major works of art are encyclopedic content, and an article devoted to a major theme is appropriate for this or any other encyclopedia. The content is sourceable both directly from the work, or from abundant secondary sources --the reviews, etc. of the various works. A few items probably dont belong here, but that is an editing question. This has no relation to a directory--the nom should go see WP NOT for what the meaning of directory is in wikipedia. I agree with Mandsford that the quality of the article should be improved. DGG (talk) 02:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete This list doesn't contain any sourced analysis. Making a list that associates all the fictional works that have MPD is unpublished synthesis from published works, violating WP:OR. It this is not original research then it is a directory of loosely associated topics, violation WP:NOT#DIR. Jay32183 (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, absolutely, very interesting article. Let's not delete everything, people. Maikel (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Interesting that you didn't first object to such terms as "listcruft" then. Maikel (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep as it addresses a notable plot point in various works of fiction and has attracted serious academic attention. I feel strongly that these "in fiction" articles are encyclopedic and I have been working to improve a variety of them. In this particularly case, it concerns a topic of interest to our readers and editors and should be kept and improved with additional sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    • That source doesn't back up any claim made in this article. in fact, the only claim that this article makes is that all of these things listed are related because of reference to MPD, which is not only original research, but incorrect. Arguing "it is encyclopedic" is arguing that you want to keep it because you want to keep it. Jay32183 (talk) 21:32, 19 November 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.