- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Plurality (psychology)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Plurality (psychology) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article survived a deletion attempt a decade ago because all the headmate bullshit was purged from it. Unfortunately it has come back with a vengeance, relying on two website pages that almost certainly don't count as reliable sources. If you cut everything only cited to those two sources, you're left with a very short article that could easily be merged into the DID article or similar, and while still up will attract users wanting to reinstate the purged content. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 11:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:SBEXT and
WP:NEXIST. This is a clearly notable topic, and sources for it exist (several of them are already cited in the article, most particularly the Vice piece which is quite clearly reliable and uses much of the same language and nomenclature in covering the topic as the "unreliable website" sources). This conversation has already been had,
relatively recently, in fact, and the deletion nomination rationale presented here does not answer the points in favor of keeping raised in that previous AfD. This topic clearly exists as something distinctly delineated from DID, as this phenomenon can most certainly be a feature of
other similar conditions, and the culture of plural systems is itself a notable subtopic which is simply
underrepresented in the media. While the current sources in the article may not appear reliable, they are accurate nonetheless, and
the information from them should be kept.
ostensibly singular userpage (
inquire within)
12:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- If the Vice article can replace the two sources the article relies on, then the article needs to be rewritten to do so. Also, I was unaware that WP:SYSTEMIC means that you can ignore policy on reliable sources, and IAR has always been a dead letter. -- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 17:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. ostensibly singular userpage ( inquire within) 12:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - Nominators rational seems to just be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 12:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Insufficient deletion rationale. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 12:37, 23 September 2022 (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.
- 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Plurality (psychology)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Plurality (psychology) ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article survived a deletion attempt a decade ago because all the headmate bullshit was purged from it. Unfortunately it has come back with a vengeance, relying on two website pages that almost certainly don't count as reliable sources. If you cut everything only cited to those two sources, you're left with a very short article that could easily be merged into the DID article or similar, and while still up will attract users wanting to reinstate the purged content. Eldomtom2 ( talk) 11:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per
WP:SBEXT and
WP:NEXIST. This is a clearly notable topic, and sources for it exist (several of them are already cited in the article, most particularly the Vice piece which is quite clearly reliable and uses much of the same language and nomenclature in covering the topic as the "unreliable website" sources). This conversation has already been had,
relatively recently, in fact, and the deletion nomination rationale presented here does not answer the points in favor of keeping raised in that previous AfD. This topic clearly exists as something distinctly delineated from DID, as this phenomenon can most certainly be a feature of
other similar conditions, and the culture of plural systems is itself a notable subtopic which is simply
underrepresented in the media. While the current sources in the article may not appear reliable, they are accurate nonetheless, and
the information from them should be kept.
ostensibly singular userpage (
inquire within)
12:08, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- If the Vice article can replace the two sources the article relies on, then the article needs to be rewritten to do so. Also, I was unaware that WP:SYSTEMIC means that you can ignore policy on reliable sources, and IAR has always been a dead letter. -- Eldomtom2 ( talk) 17:51, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. ostensibly singular userpage ( inquire within) 12:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Speedy keep - Nominators rational seems to just be WP:IDONTLIKEIT. HumanBodyPiloter5 ( talk) 12:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Insufficient deletion rationale. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 12:37, 23 September 2022 (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.