Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:33, 30 September 2007

Psychiatric abuse

Article is a list or repository of loosely associated topics (see WP:NOT). Furthermore, the collation of which may be construed as OR. If we keep this we may as well have Surgical abuse and Abuse by Republicans. Are the individual episodes noteworthy? absolutely. Are there controversial ethical issues in psychiatry? You bet! The correct structure would be an Ethical issues/controversies of psychiatry page and structured examples of how events arise. The whole slant and title of the page is POV and written by someone with an agenda. It has parallels with allowing a white supremacist to write articles on inferiorities of other races and presenting it as neutral. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - in parallel with Medical malpractice, Medical error and Iatrogenesis. I agree it needs work on coherence - for instance, it completely omits the historical roots (maltreatment of inmates of asylums). It also needs explicit reference to organisations with an overt agenda on psychiatry. Gordonofcartoon 14:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not sure these are actually parallel. Medical malpractice has a clear legal definition; medical error and iatrogenesis are also well-defined and widely used in the scholarly literature and even lay press. "Psychiatric abuse"... not so much. MastCell ^Talk 03:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - CommentHere are two references which show the term 'psychiatric abuse' in use by psychiatrists in a fashion consistent with the definition in the article:

Psychiatric News, August 6, 2004, Dr. Abraham Halpern uses the term psychiatric abuse to describe torture and fraudulent diagnoses of Falun Gong members http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgu/content/full/39/15/2 In the article by Drs. Lu and Galli, 'Psychiatric Abuse of Falun Gong Practitioners in China' the term is used throughout the article in a manner consistent with the definition in the article. http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/30/1/126.pdf

comment- there's already articles covering this topic, such as antipsychiatry.Merkinsmum 17:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article title is intrinsically agreeing that abuse exists (it may well do, but this title is not NPOV.) Maybe a POV fork?Merkinsmum 17:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, "intrinsically agreeing that abuse exists?" This article isn't "antipsychiatry," either. If you find me a psychiatrist that we can quote in the article who agrees that psychiatrists (human ones) are never abusive, and, of all the professions, not just the medical one, they're the one that has never had practitioners that never inflicted abuse on another human being, we should include that article in the references, and meld it into the text. But no such psychiatric authority exists. KP Botany 20:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be rewritten not to be one, but I agree that the title is fairly leading (and the article is going to be a magnet for antipsychiatry POV). Gordonofcartoon 17:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

delete due to the above reasons, both mine, and Casliber's belief the article's a bit OR.Merkinsmum 17:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV, OR, WP:NOT repository of items, creating POV by association. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The NPOV policy is not "No point of view." The volume of published scholarly research that specifically addresses "psychiatric abuse" is more than sufficient to satisfy WP:N and also make it a valid point of view that should be covered. The fact that the material is published in this context in RS make it specifically not OR. As far as NOT, the sources validate the context, so that does not apply either. Dhaluza 11:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keepThe article deals primarily with modern psychiatric abuse. A section could be added about historical abuse. The antipsychiatry article does not have the same or even remotely similar data as Psychiatric abuse. This article is a work in progress, and should not have been slated for deletion. Someone has wrongly removed the underconstruction template so he could slate the article for deletion. I've been editing this article every day.S. M. Sullivan 19:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment

Most of the article is simply a collection subtitles with selected stories and statistics inserted into each subsection. This is clearly WP:SYN because we are given no context...nothing is qualified or quantified for the reader. Readers are simply left to make the association between the subtitle and the contents of the subsection. All of this has been pointed out in talk. Furthermore, this information can also have no significance to the subheading and by placing several bits together the reader is given the impression that there is a serious problem. For example one subsection is entitled "Electroshock: A Concern for Women and Elderly". First, the term Electroshock is no longer used in the field. I fixed it to ECT but it was reverted. Secondly why is it a concern? These are typically two vulnerable populations within society but the title nor the text indicates that the visible minority population is vastly under represented to receive treatment. The selective association of the these two populations mixed with the words "electroshock" and "concern" creates bias in the reader. The first sentence states, "Some sources indicate that the use of electroshock treatment has been increasing as anti-depressant drugs lose their effectiveness over time". I had tagged the word "some" with "weasel word" and made a citation request for the sentence. The weasel word tag was removed and the citation request was removed and replaced with citations that clearly didn't show that when people's drugs don't work they use ECT. In fact, these people generally use another drug. ECT is mainly used for severe clinical depression. Next comes statistics from Ontario where we breathlessly learn that, "..in Canada, a Freedom of Information act request revealed", that older women get more ECT then any other population. So what? This is common knowledge, older people and women tend to be much more likely to get severe clinical depression. Next we a get a single report from a Dr. reported in the USA today that most ECT deaths are in the elderly. There is no internet link to this story and again no context. The final sentence of the first paragraph again breathlessly states, "these Ontario statistics are especially troubling in light of Sackeim's research, described below". Well what do we next learn about Sackeim? I'll let you guess...stats are again cherry picked and we have the omission of other information that gives context. This section goes on but I'll stop there.

Pragmatically, correcting the article places an undo burden on editors who seek to contribute. This has been an incredibly frustrating experience.Notwithstanding personal attacks and faulty accusations, no forward progress has been made. Editor Sullivan is too much of a roadblock to the forward movement of the article. No edit but his is left undone. This article could be good with a title change, topic focus, and a cooperative editor who wanted to do all this, but editor Sullivan has clearly demonstrated that it can't be him. I do not want to expend the energy to rework the whole article. I simply want to make sure that this article is not a springboard for fringe elements to bash all of Psychiatry.--scuro 19:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make a point about your battle with an editor by supporting a nomination for deletion of a clearly notable and encyclopediac topic.[1],[2] KP Botany 19:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That an article is poorly written or the subject of dispute - even intractibly so - is not reason for deletion. However, the editorial issues need tackling also: S.M. Sullivan's recent canvasssing of pro-Scientology editors suggests an affiliation and that this article as it stands may well already be a springboard for antipsychiatry POV. More varied editorship would help. Gordonofcartoon 20:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)][reply]

Then tackle the editorial issues, instead of nominating and supporting the nomination of a genuine subject with a body of research for deletion--this AfD is a monumental waste of time that could be devoted to fixing the article. I request the nominator withdraw this. KP Botany 20:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is the equivalent of the Rock climbing nomination. KP Botany 19:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KP the whole structure and title is POV and needs to be restarted from scratch. see above. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We do not delete articles to change the title, and we also do not delete articles because the structure is poor. The GFDL license requires contributors are credited for their contributions, which means that if any of the content is useful in a rewrite, it should be credited to the original contributor, no matter how bad the title or format. Your statement that it needs to be restarted from scratch is also a POV. Dhaluza 09:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. —Espresso Addict 20:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content with relevant articles, then Delete. The content in this article has value, but the article itself is so loosely defined as to violate WP:NOT#INFO. Reports of abuse are important, but should be placed under the article in question such as Medical restraint, Electroshock, etc. Djma12 ^(talk) 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs some fixes and improvements, but thats another story. Definitely keep. M.V.E.i. 20:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems like a legitimate topic. I agree the article could be improved. Steve Dufour 21:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has taken several references (of which I've read through) and has come to its own conclusion. This is original research. If we can get some references using the term "psychiatric abuse" and/or references talking about its actual prevalence, and not just a bunch of opinion and individual case study refs lets keep it. Until then, its a delete from me. Chupper 00:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are two references of psychiatrists using the term 'psychiatric abuse' in a manner consistent with the definition in the article. One is 'Psychiatric Abuse Of Falun Gong Practitioners in China' by Lu and Galli 2002 http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/reprint/30/1/126.pdf and the other is an article by Ken Hausman, August 6, 2004, in Psychiatric News, which quotes Dr. Abraham Halpern using the term psychiatric abuse to describe incidents of fraudulent diagnoses

,torture, involving the Falun Gong prisoners: http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/39/15/2

Delete as per nom, disparagate incidents and synthesis of events in attempt to discredit psychiatry as a field of medical practice. At very least it is not psychiatry itself which is abusive (that would suggest all use of antidepressants was misguided, or that legitimate compulsory admission in psychiatric hospitals for those with psychotic illnesses who at risk of harm to themselves or others was unjustified). There have been abuses of inmates at other types of institutions with prisoners experimented upon, disabled children in paediatric wards, elderly patients in nursing homes or geriatric wards. But that does not make for Prison abuse, Paediatric abuse or Geriatric abuse as attack articles of the need for the relevant services. An article setting out Abuse of institutional inmates could legitimately cover issues of regulation, inspection, appeals pannels, Habeas corpus, respect of rights of the individual etc etc. Whilst USSR did abuse Dissidents by forced treatment, that counts as an evil act by an authoritarian regime, and is quite different from sexual abuse by staff at a Britol institution, where presumeably there were valid psychiatric reasons for the patients being admitted to the unit and also valid that they had initially required psychiatric therapy (it was rather that they were then abused whilst in care). So as per comment by M.V.E.i. above, whilst some of the topics listed are clearly notable, indeed are important, and require a mention in wikipedia (eg Soviet dissident abuse, Nazi Euthanasia and Sterilization), this all-things article is the wrong place. David Ruben ^Talk 01:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete or rename and stubify per Casliber. The article is written with a transparent slant ("Electroconvulsive (ECT) Therapy: A Danger to Women and Elderly" WTF?) and cleanup would just leave it lying around because few editors would want to actually rework that into something neutral. Circeus 01:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Most of this article has nothing to do with psychiatrists. This article starts off with a citation from harvestingorgans.net about behavior in China to reference the "fact" that psychiatrists regularly rape, harvest organs from their patients etc. Every reference citation is to an advocacy group (at best), lobbying group, or personal blog. Most of it has nothing to do with psychiatrists, or even medical doctors, or even mental health professions. The article does not distinguish between financial advisors, politicians, religious groups, ethnic groups (blames psychiatrists for Islamic extremism and the Unification Church), parental behavior—you name it. --Mattisse 01:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Oh, and forgot psychiatrists are responsible for Hitler, ethnic cleansing, genocide . . . --Mattisse 01:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThis article is about psychiatric abuse, not psychiatrists in general. It does not state that they regularly do anything bad at all. You have not looked at the references if you can mischaracterise them as you have done, claiming that they are all blogs, personal websites, etc.. S. M. Sullivan 05:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and --equally strongly--a NPOV rewriting to give a suitable outline, with subsidiary articles for individual instances. Of course there is a strong anti-psychiatrry movement that uses these abuses or purported abuses for their own purposes, and the article at present seems to reflect an inordinate influence by those supporting that movement. (even so, that point of view needs to be fully covered). . But there is also real abuse that is recognized even by the most convinced supporters of psychiatric treatment as a branch of authentic medicine, and a general coverage is fully appropriate. The emphasis on individual accounts of misadventures is another matter, and should be dealt with by the rewrite. I can understand the motivation for the AfD , for the tone of most of the present article is indeed highly unencyclopedic-- but the topic is suitable. Bad writing, even prejudiced writing, is not reason for deletion but improvement. DGG (talk) 01:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but a nonsensical heading is. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying that the title is inappropriate, then the proper forum for this is Wikipedia:Requested moves. We do not delete articles because of disagreement with the title. If you were under the impression that we do, then you should withdraw your nomination. Dhaluza 09:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment why can't anything useful in this person's essay be simply placed in Psychiatry#Main_criticisms? We don't often allow a POV fork, but place criticisms of a subject or noteable instances of abuse within the article on that subject (Psychiatry). Can't people see that this 'article' is a POV rant from start to finish, editing it would require for instance changing most of the words probably, definitely those in the intro. Following on from Matisse's comments- I'm surprised this article doesn't accuse psychiatrists of human sacrifice.Merkinsmum 01:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is possibly a much better standard term: psychiatric malpractice It's enough for an article--there are multiple books on just that subject, not all from cranks. So we can propose a move, not a deletion. DGG (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't even like psychiatrists as I work in a profession that is at war with them, but this is such a hatchet job that even I have to rise up and defend Wikipedia standards in this case. --Mattisse 01:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Possibly merge into another article, but there is POV stuff that should disappear. I don't think the presence of some POV material is grounds to delete an entire article. Shawn K. Quinn 01:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
comment I was just reading the article's talk page and someone had said it is an example of WP:SOAP. I had forgotten about that one but of course it is. At least in the current form.Merkinsmum 02:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete - This article fits the definition of an attack page WP:ATP. An attack page fits general criteria #10 of Criteria for speedy deletion]] WP:SPEEDY.

Pages that serve no purpose but to disparage their subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). These are sometimes called "attack pages". This includes a biography of a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced, where there is no neutral version in the history to revert to. Administrators deleting such pages should not quote the content of the page in the deletion summary.--scuro 03:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not speedy that's not the way G10 is meant to be applied. What entity exactly is being disparaged? All psychiatrists--that is by no means obvious. Please dont try to short-circuit the discussion. Speedy is for unquestionable deletions, not those challenged in good faith. The criteria are meant to applied narrowlyDGG (talk) 04:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - It's definitely POV, but it is on a legitimate subject, which under a new name and organisation, could be a good article. As it stands, it needs to be deleted. It's obviously biased, and despite the references, sounds a bit OR. It can also lead to a speight of new, POV articles such as those the nominator suggested. Spawn Man 06:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. I first looked at this article to give a 3rd opinion. Two significant problems would seem to support the AfD. First, the article appears to be an original compilation of disparate items, without sufficient reliable sources that tie these items together. Hence, doesn't this article represent a synthesis of items that the author considers connected? I raised this question and, while there may be some better sourcing of discrete items, the overall article still has this rather fatal flaw. Second, the article title is not based on neutral terminology drawn from reliable sources. Instead, the title seems slanted and more likely to draw an array of controversial allegations (i.e., anything that is called or seems to be an abuse, i.e., a quote farm) rather than a coherent analysis and critique of psychiatry. Having raised this problem, I do wonder, why hasn't the article title been verified from quality sources (pref. academic)? Perhaps the title "psychiatric abuse" is mainly notable a term-of-art in Scientology. If so, then the article might be restructured and revised as an explanation of Scientology or CCHR doctrine or the like. Would the author (Sullivan) consider adding this content to Scientology and psychiatry? Or as an article growing out of that Scientology context? Thanks for hearing me out. HG | Talk 07:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC) PS I don't think the "potential" to be a better article is sufficient grounds to keep content that significantly fails on neutrality or original research grounds, sorry.[reply]
- That is an excellent summary. Not to mention that a significant amount of the article is dedicated to abuse not by psychiatrists, but other persons involved in the process that put someone in psychiatry, so that elements like abuse by professional conservators and declaring political opponents psychically unstable (e.g. in USSR or China) are lumped together which have little reason to be. Circeus 07:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may be an excellent summary of something, but not of reasons to delete. A simple Google scholar search turns up hundreds of scholarly works that use the exact term "psychiatric abuse". Although this article may be a more comprehensive compilation than those in the existing sources, that is a good thing, not a bad one! Collecting related items is part of building an encyclopedia. So taking source material on psychiatric abuse in the Soviet Union and merging it with material on psychiatric abuse in China is not only acceptable, it is desirable. This is not synthesis to advance a position by the editor (if the references are advancing a position, that is dealt with by including other positions, not excluding them). As far as the neutrality of the title, the term is used in the title of these scholarly works in various forms, so the title is appropriate since it is supported by reliable sources (this does not mean that further research could not find a more appropriate term that would make a better title, but it should only come from research on terms in use, not a contrived compromise neologism by WP editors). There are many articles that could attract inappropriate content, but that is reason to watch them, not delete them. The speculation on Scientology is unfounded. As far as the follow-up comment on psychiatrists vs. psychiatry the article lead sentence clarifies that it covers abuse while under psychiatric care. Dhaluza 12:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A laundry list of instances where people have come to harm while they were under psychiatric treatment. The opening sentence of the first paragraph says it all: "Since psychiatrists are medical doctors, they are, in principle, bound by the Hippocratic Oath, which states, 'never do harm to anyone.'" This is a pure anti-psychiatry diatribe. One cannot possibly compare situations in developing countries with the Western world in the 1950s; attempts to do so become WP:NOR almost instantly. If kept, needs to be renamed to allegations of abuse of psychiatric patients and drastically NPOVed. Main editor keeps using {{inuse}} to stop AFD; main editor also declares that he has an interest in dianetics/scientology. JFW | T@lk 07:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per DGG. Article has already been significantly cleaned up, which shows the assertions that this was a hopeless case clearly lack vision. The nom seems to be taking issue with the name, which is properly dealt with in requested moves, not AfD. The comparison to white supremacy in the nom is over-the-top hyperbole. I find the nom completely without merit, and this whole discussion an unnecessary distraction. Dhaluza 09:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on appropriateness of the title. A google scholar search turns up numerous journal articles on "psychiatric abuse" not only of apparent political prisoners in China, but also behind the Iron Curtain, and also in relation to sexual preditors in the U.S. It also turns up at least three books published in the 1980's with the term in their title, which shows it is not obscure or a neologism:
- Bloch, S. (1984). Soviet Psychiatric Abuse: The Shadow Over World Psychiatry. Gollancz. ISBN 978-0813302096. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
- Stover, E. (1985). The Breaking of Bodies and Minds: Torture, Psychiatric Abuse, and the Health Professions. Freeman. ISBN 978-0716717331. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
- Van Voren, R. (1989). Soviet Psychiatric Abuse in the Gorbachev Era. International Association on the Political Use of Psychiatry. ISBN 978-9072657015. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

-- Dhaluza 10:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but this article reminds me more of this site [3] the shock! the horror! and this is the way in which the term is being used here.Merkinsmum 12:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is grounds for deletion of a legitimate topic? Just because a group co-opts a legitimate term for its purposes does not mean we cannot cover it here (in fact, that and similar groups' activities should probably be properly contextualized in this framework). Dhaluza 12:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if a legitimate topic is presented in a slanted manner or under a one-sided rubric, then the article would need to be deleted. The material can be recovered for use in a more balanced piece. If the article synthesizes a range of topics (a concern which the above sources don't dispel), then the content should be disseminated to the article from which it is (in effect) a POV fork. Also, I would note that if the sources primarily come from Scientology-related publications (as I noticed discussed in Talk), then this only sets up notability as a Scientology doctrine. Thanks! HG | Talk 15:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about at least rename/redirect to something like psychiatric malpractice, because we have a medical malpractice article, but not a medical abuse one? Yes other authors might have used the term, but they were not required to be NPOV as wikipedia is. Like it or not, 'abuse' is a loaded word.Merkinsmum 12:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Malpractice implies inadvertent or non-intentional harm. Most of the cases here are at least alleged to be deliberate. The sources for "Psychiatric Abuse" abuse actually support splitting this article to "Political psychiatric Abuse" for dissenters and undesirables such as in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and China, and possibly treating other forms of psychiatric abuse separately. Dhaluza 12:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Psychiatric abuse" when it is used in scholarly papers is used to describe oppressive federal systemic method of abuse. Once you get away from this particular grouping it is very hard to discern any difference in abuse between other populations and the Psychiatric population. For instance serious abuse has also occured with these populations under the states care: prisoners, the elderly, mentally retarded, and aboriginals. Noted Antipsychiatrists and Scientoligists such as Thomas Szasz also use the term, but again, they do so as a springboard to make a wide based attack on everything that is Psychiatry, as this article does. I could see a title such as Oppressive Regime Psychiatric Abuse existing with a significant truncating of the definition and subsequent article. Any subsection not fitting that definition could be merged into the articles which already exist on that topic.--scuro 14:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Who is User:S. M. Sullivan? He has reverted all edits made within the last 24 hours to the body of the article. How is there a chance for the article to change if User:S. M. Sullivan controls all edits? --Mattisse 16:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the problem and why no other editors can possibly improve the article unless he is warned or something, as he completely WP:OWNs the article.(why not, as it is not an article, but is written in the style of an essay/polemic of which he is the sole 'authorMerkinsmum 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then run through the various levels of vandalism warning or whatever else is appropriate until he gets blocked. Wikipedia is not his soapbox--make this clear to him via the warning templates and getting him blocked for violating Wikipedia policies. KP Botany 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: perhaps Divide There are really four topics here: Psychiatric malpractice in the ordinary sense of malpractice--negligence, inadequate care, etc., Psychiatric political abuse as in the Soviet Union, Psychiatric experimentation upon humans, and perhaps Anti-psychiatry movement. The present article is an unsatisfactory blend, with a decided POV bias towards the 4th, using arguments from the others. DGG (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for Deletion

See also: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion Shortcut: WP:DEL#REASON Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:

Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)
Content not suitable for an encyclopedia
Copyright infringement
Hoax articles (but not articles describing a notable hoax)
Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic
Inappropriate user pages
Inflammatory redirects
Article information that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources
All attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed
Newly-coined words or terms (i.e., neologisms).
Overcategorization
Patent nonsense or gibberish
Redundant templates
Subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)
Vandalism that is not correctable

Please note if you are here to do AfDs on article, these are the criteria for deletion. If you have an issue with an article don't make a point and waste the time of the community with your complaints by making up criteria for deletion that do not exist. Tag OR as such. Warn the owner. IN this case by forcing good editors to argue for the keeping of a topic that is appropriately encyclopediac in nature and does not meet the criteria for deletion you are giving ammunition to a bad editor. Cut it out. KP Botany 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cut it out yourself. And it is *Content not suitable for an encyclopedia, in effect would probably not be allowed on the users own page, is an inflammatory POV fork of various articles, all of which are criteria for deletion. I cannot say how much I think it's sick, but that's by the by, there are a good few deletion criteria it overlaps besides being a loopy rant that probably somewhere in it blames psychiatrists for 9/11 and other WP:BOLLOCKS.. It blamed shrinks for organ harvesting, then had to go back on that on the talk page as being misleading, but that shows how much this article on 'psychiatric abuse' has been created as a polemic, effectively a fork from various articles created solely to push a POV. This author should be sectioned, involuntary medicated, amongst other things. Psychiatrists exist for a good reason which he is a prime example of.Merkinsmum 18:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 99: / Line 99: @@
 ::This is exactly the problem and why no other editors can possibly improve the article unless he is warned or something, as he completely [[WP:OWN]]s the article.(why not, as it is not an article, but is written in the style of an essay/polemic of which he is the sole 'author[[User:Merkinsmum|Merkinsmum]] 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 :::Then run through the various levels of vandalism warning or whatever else is appropriate until he gets blocked.  Wikipedia is not ''his'' soapbox--make this clear to him via the warning templates and getting him blocked for violating Wikipedia policies.  [[User:KP Botany|KP Botany]] 17:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
+*'''Comment: perhaps Divide''' There are really four  topics here: '''Psychiatric malpractice''' in the ordinary sense of malpractice--negligence, inadequate care, etc.,  '''Psychiatric political abuse''' as in the Soviet Union, '''Psychiatric experimentation upon humans''',  and perhaps '''Anti-psychiatry movement'''. The present article is an unsatisfactory blend, with a decided POV bias towards the 4th, using arguments from the others. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 19:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 ===Criteria for Deletion===