Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimensional approach to personality disorders

Dimensional approach to personality disorders

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Dimensional approach to personality disorders

Dimensional approach to personality disorders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are a variety of reasons this article should, in my opinion, be deleted. Article does not appear to pass WP:GNG. After I have gone looking for sources, it appears in search engines for a phrase in non-psychology terms that would be like "riding+a+bicycle" Riding a bicycle or "Take a tylenol". Yes, it appears but it is a description of something. See this and this for further evidence of how it is not a notable topic because of the description. The next issue is the article is not actually about the topic. "Dimensional approach to personality disorders" is the article but this phrase only appears once. The article appears to be about a completely different topic. At best, I think the subsections could be merged into other articles and parts of it could be merged into Personality_disorder#Interventions with a redirect for the article going there. Lastly, Wikipedia is NOT a textbook and this article reads like that. I don't think, given that the article only mentions the topic in the first sentence, this is easily fixable... especially when combined with the notability issues. LauraHale (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Clearly notable, just needs some cleanup. Perhaps Dimensional models of personality disorders would be a better name for this, but this is a central concept in personality disorder classification (as opposed to a categorical approach) as seen here, especially in the Alternative Dimensional Models section. The top hits in this Google scholar search also demonstrate that this passes WP:GNG. If this is not written in a manner that is conducive to DYK that's fine, but that's not a reason to delete. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 04:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 10:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Strong keep -As per Gobonobo, the article should probably be renamed to Dimensional models of personality disorders, though approach and model are often used interchangeably in the academic world. There are hundreds of acedmic papers that cover this subject, and the article has references to the different models. The article is a work in progress as part of an academic assignment of a pysch grad student at FSU. This is the user's first article; taking their article to AFD over style concerns is not the right approach. You also didn't notify the user on their talk page which is not right. Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers.Smallman12q (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I communicated with the user several times. The article doesn't appear to talk about "Dimensional models of personality disorders" either as that doesn't appear in the article either. I'll repeat that I can find a huge volume of academic articles about riding a bicycle or taking a Tylenol, but we would not have an article titled Riding a bicycle or Take a Tylenol. The content could and probably should be merged into appropriate existing articles because the article is not about the stated topic. Attachment disorder repeatedly mentions Attachment disorder. Object permanence repeatedly mentions Object permanence. Consciousness repeatedly mentions Consciousness. Almost all articles talk about their topic... and medical articles should be held to a higher standards. I can't see how this article can be saved from its not on topic, reads like an academic article and pass WP:GNG. --LauraHale (talk)
    • We have an article for Cycling and if someone was willing, there is sufficient literature to write an article on proper Tylenol dosage. I don't see why there can't be overview/comparison articles on the different aspects of the topic. The article is not complete...and can be reworked to more accurately reflect the title. This is their first article. The article should probably be to Dimensional models of personality disorders. There are books on the topic. From Textbook of Psychiatric Epidemiology p.419: "The issue of the relative merits of categorical versus dimensional approaches cuts accross most domains of pyschopathology. However it is especially significant in the domain of PDs, in part, because of the long tradition of research in personality pyschology based on dimensional models." Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I believe there is a misunderstanding in what the topic is.Smallman12q (talk) 00:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
    • LauraHale did not communicate with the user Abj89 on her talk page or in the talk page to the article "dimensional models of personality disorders". She listed one general criticism of all the students' contributions on the general course page, which mostly focused on her frustration and annoyance that students were apparently not following directions and that she was not being paid to do review work. It had no specific criticism and did not refer to the dimensional models page. Dimensional models of disorders may be the hottest topic in abnormal psychology for the past ten years, and will have major consequences for diagnosis, treatment, and insurance over the coming years, because of its influence on the DSM. The public is going to want to know what these models mean, and I think Wikipedia may be a good place for them to find that information. I was not aware that the count of references to the topic title was an evaluation criterion, but certainly an editor could comment on the talk page that such a change is recommended. William Fleeson (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
      • The article was not written by Abj89. The user was repeatedly communicated with during their DYK review. They did not respond and have yet to respond from what I can tell. I'm not arguing I should be paid for me work and my bitterness does not stem from that but rather the incompetence of either William Fleeson in preparing students for writing articles and interacting with the community, the incompetence of students in following directions given by William Fleeson and the campus ambassador, or the failure of the programme to set realistic guidelines. As an academic article, I would probably rate it a C. As a Wikipedia article, it is pretty awful and it doesn't pass guidelines for WP:GNG. By the way, what was your instructional objective for having students submit WP:DYK? If your instructional objective was "Students will learn about psychology by submitting subject specific articles to Wikipedia's Did You Know process." then it was ill advised. You do not learn CONTENT and SUBJECT expertise by going through the Did You Know process. An appropriate instructional objective related to Did You Know would have been "Students will learn about the peer assessment process and practice following directions by submitting an article to Wikipedia for inclusion on Did You Know." The file File:Outreach Oceania Integrating Wikimedia into the Curriculum.pdf should give you a better idea as to what you're doing William Fleeson as it should give you insights into how to maximise student success while not creating disruption on English Wikipedia. --LauraHale (talk) 01:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)