Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emotional Deprivation Disorder
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 delete. —Kurykh 00:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Emotional Deprivation Disorder
Does not seem to meet WP:NOTE as the WP:OR creation of a single individual Anna A. Terruwe, M.D, and, apparently based more upon the works of St Thomas Aquinas than any recognised medical discipline. [1] the only sources for the article are to Conrad W Baars who translated Terruwe's work into English, and his daughter, Suzzanne, and evenagelist who holds a MA in "mental heath counselling" [2]. I really doubt if this is in any way notable enough to remain as an article in an Encyclopaedia Zeraeph 18:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete As synthesis of the OR of Baars. None of the references provided are from publications of any kind, just articles published on Baars' Web site. Per the lead paragraph, this is not a condition that has been recognized by any official medical body. Caknuck 18:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
-
- comment You are misuing the criterion of WP:OR, unless you have a good reason to believe that Suzanne Baars and/or Bonnie Shayne are the primary authors. Applying your standard for OR would not allow articles on groundbreaking research.
- From the opening section of WP:OR: "The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position..." That seems to apply in spades here. Also "An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following... It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source." Articles on groundbreaking research are fine, once they draw their information from reliable, non-primary sources. Again from WP:OR: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." This article fails this aspect of the policy, as well. Caknuck 20:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- The synthesis has been done by someone other than the Wikipedia author. The article is actually fairly descriptive of the theory, etc., and thus I disagree that the article is OR, unless it's also COI. But the subject is not notable, and no evidence of notability has been presented. Has anyone other than Baars and Shayne ever quoted Baars' papers? If there were references to this disorder, even to debunk it, in a psychology or psychiatry journal or textbook. this article would deserve to be kept. But the pet theory of two or three pshrinks is not, on its own, notable enough to keep. Argyriou (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed 100%. Cheers, Caknuck 21:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- The synthesis has been done by someone other than the Wikipedia author. The article is actually fairly descriptive of the theory, etc., and thus I disagree that the article is OR, unless it's also COI. But the subject is not notable, and no evidence of notability has been presented. Has anyone other than Baars and Shayne ever quoted Baars' papers? If there were references to this disorder, even to debunk it, in a psychology or psychiatry journal or textbook. this article would deserve to be kept. But the pet theory of two or three pshrinks is not, on its own, notable enough to keep. Argyriou (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- That said:
- Delete unless independent sources of information about this condition and the Terruwe/Baars theories can be found. Argyriou (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep I put a cleanup-verify template. "Emotional Deprivation Disorder" has 1440 google hits (exact phrase), several of which are books. There is also a paper on Google scholar. I've notified the article's creator for more sourcing.--Victor falk 21:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Zero Medline hits makes me doubt this is in real medical use. Espresso Addict 02:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 02:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I'd like to point out that WP::OR does not imply self-authorship on wikipedia, rather it means that the material does not occur elsewhere in a credible reference, making the work 'original to wikipedia', literally having its origins here. CeilingCrash 02:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, Caknuck and CeilingCrash. Bearian 02:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Book about the subject is written by the same authors as almost all web resources about it. Sole Google Scholar result is a dissertation about literature where it appears that the non-expert author assumed this was an accepted medical condition. It isn't. To establish notability, it would have to have been written about by third parties with a fact-checking process that would have included researching the subject (i.e., a reliable source). There are none. JulesH 08:07, 19 July 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.
