- 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 merge to Narcissistic personality disorder. Very selectively. Consensus is that it is preferable to cover this topic, if at all, as part of the article about the disorder. Sandstein 05:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Narcissistic abuse
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Narcissistic abuse ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is not only lacking sources and citations, it is clearly sympathetic of abusers. It is incorrect, uninformed, and offensive. Idmidiom ( talk) 22:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Completing nomination on behalf of above editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have not yet formed an opinion of my own at this time. -- Finngall talk 04:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Nominations should not be made as proxies for new editors as the proper process of WP:BEFORE is not done and valid reasons for deletion are not stated, so that there is no case to answer. This faux nomination is especially vexatious as the topic has already been at AfD before, when the result was Keep. The topic is also highly notable as there are numerous books written specifically about it – see links above. What the topic clearly needs is some competent and expert editing per WP:ATD and WP:IMPERFECT. Perhaps Casliber can spare us a moment... Andrew🐉( talk) 11:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @ Andrew Davidson: I'm not going to argue the merit of the nomination--I've processed quite a number of these on behalf of anonymous IPs and newer editors, and while they have (to put it charitably) varied widely in terms of merit, that does not in any way mean that they have not been made in good faith. This one was a bit borderline by even my generous standards, but I see no reason to be apologetic about it. As for the previous "keep" verdict: That was a decade ago, and standards have evolved considerably since then. If that discussion had occurred, say, last year, it might very well have tipped the balance in the other direction. -- Finngall talk 16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Per Andrew as there are numerous books written specifically about it. It should easily pass WP:BASIC. TheChronium 11:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - based on Andrew Davidson's argument above. The subject of the article is clearly notable, per its current sourcing/citations as well as a multitude of other available references online that could be added to the article to further improve it. Deletion discussions are not a forum for deleting the things one might personally disagree with, however it seems that the nomination is based on that criteria rather than WP's guidelines and policies for notability. Netherzone ( talk) 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Merge relevant material to Narcissistic personality disorder, Domestic violence or any other abuse pages. Article reads like an essay bordering on original research between NPD and DV and other types of abuse. Looking at google scholar, there are a handful of primary sources (articles and books) and zero secondary sources. The issue is a very serious one. Abuse is abuse whether perpetrated by someone with NPD, BPD or ASPD, or something else, and having a subpage like this I feel detracts from the quality of a more coherent stronger parent article. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ugh. This is a terrible article about a terrible pop-psych concept. Nonetheless, many terrible pop-psych concepts get articles one way or another, and this is definitely a popular enough one to describe somewhere. The article is in such poor shape that I might recommend WP:TNT deletion, considering my prior comments on pop-psych information making its way to Wikipedia. I worry this may be a topic on which a policy-compliant article would be near-impossible to write, considering the gap between what coverage exists and what sources would be necessary to write an article that isn't a horrible ableist clusterfuck. I might be inclined, if I have to, to suggest a very selective merge -- somewhere along the lines of a single sentence -- to e.g. the main NPD article that explains that 'narcissistic abuse' is a currently popular way of conceptualizing certain forms of abusive relationships. Vaticidal prophet 01:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- While I'm in agreement with Andrew Davidson that it's not generally helpful to proxy-nominate articles for deletion, this is a case where I think the concerns with the article greatly outweigh the bureaucracy of who nominated it. I am in agreement with Casliber that this topic is not really independently notable of all of the other forms of abuse and narcissism itself - and any salvageable content (which I see little of) can be merged to those articles. Casliber's last sentence puts it well. Also going to second Vaticidal - merge any useful content then TNT this article, without prejudice against recreating in the future in a much better state (if possible - which I agree with Vatidical may not be the case). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 02:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Do NOT delete! People need to understand this disorder especially if they are living with someone with this! Critical to have access to information a definition & further resources to learn how to deal with this person & safe steps to take. As well as how to heal from the abuse cycle. This is what saved me after ... understanding and access to information on healing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.140.46.186 ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC) — 32.140.46.186 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Merge relevant material to Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury. While abuse dynamics as described popularly under the heading of narcissistic abuse certainly happen, it's rarely connected with recognized and diagnosed NPD, and the description of the phenomenon belongs under narcissistic rage rather than the NPD article. It serves neither survivors nor people with NPD to have this mess of an unsourced article floating around. 12.227.254.2 ( talk) 16:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, but no merge, at least right now. This seems to be a notable and well covered subject as appears from articles retrieved by Google scholar [1] and from sourcing on the page. In addition, it might be merged with another page on a closely related topic. But I think that would be better addressed by starting a separate discussion on merging. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - We should be embarrassed to have this "article" on Wikipedia. It is a hodgepodge of random ramblings devoid of any cohesive meaning. The phrase "narcissistic abuse" does not appear in the title of any articles in prominent journals and in only two obscure books. Do narcissistic adults often cause harm to children and others? Yes, of course. But that topic is best addressed within articles such as Child abuse, Psychological abuse, Domestic violence, Narcissistic personality disorder, etc. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- delete per Markworthen-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Merge very selectively to Narcissistic personality disorder (taking extreme care to leave the OR and meandering synthesis behind), and then delete what remains. firefly ( t · c ) 12:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, per Markworthen, and the spirit of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As a page based primarily on a lexical premise (" hypernym"), I am unable - in general - to see compelling reasons for merger/s. 86.186.168.216 ( talk) 11:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Given the topic is related to medicine, and
WP:MEDRS, it would be good to weight the arguments above through the prism of the expertise of the person giving them. For the record, I don't have background in medicine sufficien to think my opinion about this topic has much merit, although through the prism of expert Wikipedian and scholar in other fields I'll note that Google Scholar does have some hits for this term. But whether they are reliable or quacky I am not sure. Not a single journal article I see in GSCholar appears to be widely cited, or comes from a journal a relative outsider like me would recognize (Lancet, etc.). My current view is that the topic is very
WP:FRINGE in the current medical studies, and/or is a fork of what is better known as the
narcissistic personality disorder (a term that is much more widely used in scholarly literature), but I am not going to put my head on the block for this claim. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 07:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's more or less a pop-psych concept. Personally, I think it gross ableism. It's a fairly popular pop-psych concept regardless of my thoughts, and I'm unsurprised we have an article for it, but we probably shouldn't, and there's a reasonable question about whether we should be hosting such material at all. I do think if we don't have mention of it somewhere then good(?)-faith contributors will keep trying to mention it, but maybe we should just delete outright and revert as they go. Vaticidal prophet 01:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 8 June 2021 (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 merge to Narcissistic personality disorder. Very selectively. Consensus is that it is preferable to cover this topic, if at all, as part of the article about the disorder. Sandstein 05:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Narcissistic abuse
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Narcissistic abuse ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article is not only lacking sources and citations, it is clearly sympathetic of abusers. It is incorrect, uninformed, and offensive. Idmidiom ( talk) 22:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Completing nomination on behalf of above editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have not yet formed an opinion of my own at this time. -- Finngall talk 04:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 07:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Nominations should not be made as proxies for new editors as the proper process of WP:BEFORE is not done and valid reasons for deletion are not stated, so that there is no case to answer. This faux nomination is especially vexatious as the topic has already been at AfD before, when the result was Keep. The topic is also highly notable as there are numerous books written specifically about it – see links above. What the topic clearly needs is some competent and expert editing per WP:ATD and WP:IMPERFECT. Perhaps Casliber can spare us a moment... Andrew🐉( talk) 11:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @ Andrew Davidson: I'm not going to argue the merit of the nomination--I've processed quite a number of these on behalf of anonymous IPs and newer editors, and while they have (to put it charitably) varied widely in terms of merit, that does not in any way mean that they have not been made in good faith. This one was a bit borderline by even my generous standards, but I see no reason to be apologetic about it. As for the previous "keep" verdict: That was a decade ago, and standards have evolved considerably since then. If that discussion had occurred, say, last year, it might very well have tipped the balance in the other direction. -- Finngall talk 16:09, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep Per Andrew as there are numerous books written specifically about it. It should easily pass WP:BASIC. TheChronium 11:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Speedy Keep - based on Andrew Davidson's argument above. The subject of the article is clearly notable, per its current sourcing/citations as well as a multitude of other available references online that could be added to the article to further improve it. Deletion discussions are not a forum for deleting the things one might personally disagree with, however it seems that the nomination is based on that criteria rather than WP's guidelines and policies for notability. Netherzone ( talk) 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Merge relevant material to Narcissistic personality disorder, Domestic violence or any other abuse pages. Article reads like an essay bordering on original research between NPD and DV and other types of abuse. Looking at google scholar, there are a handful of primary sources (articles and books) and zero secondary sources. The issue is a very serious one. Abuse is abuse whether perpetrated by someone with NPD, BPD or ASPD, or something else, and having a subpage like this I feel detracts from the quality of a more coherent stronger parent article. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 01:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ugh. This is a terrible article about a terrible pop-psych concept. Nonetheless, many terrible pop-psych concepts get articles one way or another, and this is definitely a popular enough one to describe somewhere. The article is in such poor shape that I might recommend WP:TNT deletion, considering my prior comments on pop-psych information making its way to Wikipedia. I worry this may be a topic on which a policy-compliant article would be near-impossible to write, considering the gap between what coverage exists and what sources would be necessary to write an article that isn't a horrible ableist clusterfuck. I might be inclined, if I have to, to suggest a very selective merge -- somewhere along the lines of a single sentence -- to e.g. the main NPD article that explains that 'narcissistic abuse' is a currently popular way of conceptualizing certain forms of abusive relationships. Vaticidal prophet 01:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- While I'm in agreement with Andrew Davidson that it's not generally helpful to proxy-nominate articles for deletion, this is a case where I think the concerns with the article greatly outweigh the bureaucracy of who nominated it. I am in agreement with Casliber that this topic is not really independently notable of all of the other forms of abuse and narcissism itself - and any salvageable content (which I see little of) can be merged to those articles. Casliber's last sentence puts it well. Also going to second Vaticidal - merge any useful content then TNT this article, without prejudice against recreating in the future in a much better state (if possible - which I agree with Vatidical may not be the case). -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 02:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Do NOT delete! People need to understand this disorder especially if they are living with someone with this! Critical to have access to information a definition & further resources to learn how to deal with this person & safe steps to take. As well as how to heal from the abuse cycle. This is what saved me after ... understanding and access to information on healing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.140.46.186 ( talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC) — 32.140.46.186 ( talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Merge relevant material to Narcissistic rage and narcissistic injury. While abuse dynamics as described popularly under the heading of narcissistic abuse certainly happen, it's rarely connected with recognized and diagnosed NPD, and the description of the phenomenon belongs under narcissistic rage rather than the NPD article. It serves neither survivors nor people with NPD to have this mess of an unsourced article floating around. 12.227.254.2 ( talk) 16:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep, but no merge, at least right now. This seems to be a notable and well covered subject as appears from articles retrieved by Google scholar [1] and from sourcing on the page. In addition, it might be merged with another page on a closely related topic. But I think that would be better addressed by starting a separate discussion on merging. My very best wishes ( talk) 17:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete - We should be embarrassed to have this "article" on Wikipedia. It is a hodgepodge of random ramblings devoid of any cohesive meaning. The phrase "narcissistic abuse" does not appear in the title of any articles in prominent journals and in only two obscure books. Do narcissistic adults often cause harm to children and others? Yes, of course. But that topic is best addressed within articles such as Child abuse, Psychological abuse, Domestic violence, Narcissistic personality disorder, etc. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- delete per Markworthen-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 12:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Merge very selectively to Narcissistic personality disorder (taking extreme care to leave the OR and meandering synthesis behind), and then delete what remains. firefly ( t · c ) 12:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
- Delete, per Markworthen, and the spirit of WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. As a page based primarily on a lexical premise (" hypernym"), I am unable - in general - to see compelling reasons for merger/s. 86.186.168.216 ( talk) 11:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
- Comment. Given the topic is related to medicine, and
WP:MEDRS, it would be good to weight the arguments above through the prism of the expertise of the person giving them. For the record, I don't have background in medicine sufficien to think my opinion about this topic has much merit, although through the prism of expert Wikipedian and scholar in other fields I'll note that Google Scholar does have some hits for this term. But whether they are reliable or quacky I am not sure. Not a single journal article I see in GSCholar appears to be widely cited, or comes from a journal a relative outsider like me would recognize (Lancet, etc.). My current view is that the topic is very
WP:FRINGE in the current medical studies, and/or is a fork of what is better known as the
narcissistic personality disorder (a term that is much more widely used in scholarly literature), but I am not going to put my head on the block for this claim. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here 07:57, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's more or less a pop-psych concept. Personally, I think it gross ableism. It's a fairly popular pop-psych concept regardless of my thoughts, and I'm unsurprised we have an article for it, but we probably shouldn't, and there's a reasonable question about whether we should be hosting such material at all. I do think if we don't have mention of it somewhere then good(?)-faith contributors will keep trying to mention it, but maybe we should just delete outright and revert as they go. Vaticidal prophet 01:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:59, 8 June 2021 (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.