Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narcissism

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The result of the debate was Keep, nomination withdrawn. Yanksox (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narcissism

This article is just a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- Where 03:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Withdraw nom the article has been expanded to the point where it is no longer simply a dictionary definition. -- Where 19:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This article serves to distinguish the layman's version of narcissism from the clinical version. For that reason I vote to keep - I don't think it serves Wikipedia to simply merge. Danny Lilithborne 03:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The more legitimate, fuller Narcissism (psychology) used to be under this title; move it back here. This is unencyclopedic point form. CanadianCaesar Cæsar is turn’d to hear 04:01, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Narcissism (psychology). --Danielrocks123 04:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Reverse merge the narcissism psychology article back to here. BoojiBoy 04:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and redirect per CanadianCaesar and Danielrocks123. --Coredesat 05:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect As above, Stevee2 05:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and move N(psy) back to N. No merge necessary. ~ trialsanderrors 06:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn after reviewing User:Zeraeph's edit history, and changed to Strong Keep given recent edits. ~ trialsanderrors 10:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and move N (psy) to N. --Eivindt@c 07:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Speedy Keep nice rewrite, problem solved. --Eivindt@c 08:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and move the Narcissm (psychology) to the article space. It is what readers would expect when they searched for narcissism. Keep given changes to the article. There are some concerns about the section of the Japanese public figure but those can be better addressed on the talk page. Capitalistroadster 02:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Capitalistroadster 07:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete and move per above. —Khoikhoi 08:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Give it a chance, someone (not me) suggested it was wrong to devote an article entitled "Narcissism" entirely to the clinical condition, and I find I agree, BUT if you try to incorporate the general useage into the clincial condition it becomes grossly inaccurate and misleading. All that is here, as yet, are a few lines I copied from someone else's radical attempt to generalise the clinical article, by no means intended to represent the full article. The fact is that when people use the word "Narcissism" they do not always, or even mostly, mean the clinical condition and that warrants recognition.--Zeraeph 08:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Just want to say I am SO THRILLED by all this support for the article.--Zeraeph 13:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge anything useful into Narcissism (psychology) and move the combined article back to Narcissism. -- Kjkolb 09:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and move per Kjkolb. —♦♦ SʘʘTHING(Я) 11:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. --Xyrael T 12:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep There is potential for a great article here based upon the Greek origins and its modern meaning (at least that's what the article told me). ScottW 13:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep The editor is trying to create an article here, it doesn't mean that if it is short, it will not be longer. By deleting this, you, who do not edit the article, thus are incompetent, only discourage the editor in his efforts. I have saved the wiki source code for this article, and if deleted, I will restore it per WP:IAR. ackoz 13:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Moreover, this is no place to discuss merging the article. Only the editors that work on both articles should decide about what to merge and what not, of course you can, but you know nothing about the topic, so if the majority of votes is merge or move, this is not binding for the editors. ackoz 15:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • You might want to chill a little on the incompetence accusations. But I also urge the editors to consider User:Zeraeph's contributions. This looks like a fly-by-night at first glance, but clearly Zeraeph has written extensively on the subject before. ~ trialsanderrors 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry, I should have written uninformed. ackoz 20:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly noteworthy subject. Current content is helpful. Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - more than dictionary and helpful content. --WinHunter (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Noteworthy and until yesterday in need of a complete rethink. No merge due to the immense amount of irrelevant Freudian theory in the psychology article - this content and the actual definition of narcissism as a character trait MUST at all costs be kept separate. Upon commencing work on the narcissism article the sheer mismash of fluffily written, trumped up text and jumbled theorem was astounding; the article was in clear need of extensive work. Thus, the mainstay article and the (psychology) subsidiary article should be separate; our combined energies must be vested in improving and perhaps thinning down the (psychology) area as it is in dire need of attention. A detailed critique made on the day of editing can be found on the talk page - it could be used as a guide of sorts for future editors. -- D-Katana) 20:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Just want to note that, while bearing in mind Freud pretty much created Narcissism as a psychological construct (can't help wondering if the word was in common useage before that?) the critique is absolutely superb and I have personally found it invaluable --Zeraeph 20:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Narcissism (psychology). Keep, quite interesting, and I'm working on it too. -- Jared Hunt 21:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Edit in progress. ABenis 22:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep interesting, well-sourced and useful article; the concepts discussed here are different than in the Narcissism (psychology) article. JChap 00:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep, the nomination was withdrawn. --Coredesat 02:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep seems like s decent article now. Rockpocket 06:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep per above. --Zoz (t) 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as per above Mathmo 02:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep we need to have as much information on the flaws of mankind made as succintly and understandable as possible. Why delete it, when you can help the editor to make it relevant and understandable. This is a very negative part of our society (imho), but since Wikipedia is neutral, I think the article needs to present it as impartially as possible so people can make their own decision. Deleting it feels like someone wants to sweep this under the rug, but as long as it is educating people, I think an article deserves to be kept. -Ig 3:00, 20 June 2006. (UTC)
  • Keep after the good job done especially two days ago, this vote is an open-and-shut case now. Sciurinæ 12:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep because I love myself and I think I'll keep me too. --Psients 04:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Delete Other Narcissism article is sufficient, changed my past vote 203.122.194.178 13:41, 22 June 2006 (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.