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. Cbrown1023 talk 02:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Healthy multiplicity[edit]

This seems to be a soapbox article that cites various internet fora, blogs, and discussion groups as evidence for the truth or untruth of the underlying concept. Unfortunately, there are no reliable sources cited therein, and I can't find it discussed in sources other than blogs and the like. It doesn't seem to me that this meets our content standards, and therefore I'm nominating it for deletion. Nandesuka 14:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant WP:SOAP issues aside, the term appears to still be a neologism. Can anyone find any reliable sources? I have only [1]. Part Deux 14:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, Firman and Gila, on page 68 of ISBN 0791455335 (part of chapter #4, entitled "multiplicity within the personality"), discuss Roberto Assagioli's notion of subpersonalities and assert that "subpersonalities are normal". They state that DID is "further along a continuum of dissociation that we all share", although it's unclear whether they consider being that far along the continuum to be healthy. In contrast, there's a fair amount of documented opinion saying that multiplicity is not healthy, such as Glass on page 60 of ISBN 0801482569, who asserts that whilst one may choose to have multiple tastes and interests or choose to be eccentric, "one does not choose, however, to possess a multiple or fragmented identity". Radden, in chapter 3 of ISBN 0262181754, seems to take the idea that DID is not healthy as a premise. On the gripping hand, ISBN 1932690034 acknowledges that people with DID can function. And those are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to this topic. See also the sources cited in the parent article at Multiple personality controversy#Healthy multiplicity, which are omitted by this sub-article.
  The biggest problem with this article is that it has forked out one side of the disagreement over DID/MPD rather than creating a summary style fork in a neutral manner. Forking out just the side that asserts that DID/MPD is healthy is wrong. Any sub-article on the subject should address both the views of those who say that it is healthy and the views of those who say that it is not, and should have a title that does not implicitly take the side of the former. Uncle G 16:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uncle G, I respect the work you're doing here, but note that the issue isn't the underlying question of whether or not multiplicity is healthy, but whether the term "healthy multiplicity" exists as a distinct concept in reliable sources. I don't see that term in any of the sources you cite -- am I missing something?
    In other words, if the term isn't in use in reliable sources, then I fear it is a neologism, and hence inappropriate. Nandesuka 17:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - You are missing the fact that articles are about subjects, not terms, and the subject is the underlying question. We don't look to see whether "terms are in use", and when discussing the deletion of an entire article we look beyond the title. Looking to see whether words are used or not is Wiktionary territory. This is Wikipedia. We look to see whether subjects are documented, and what names they are documented under. The subject here is that very underlying question that you mention. That the people who, as I have already pointed out, have expressed opinions on the healthiness or unhealthiness of DID/MPD didn't use the exact phrase "healthy multiplicity" just means that this article is badly titled. But we knew that already. The very problem with this article is the inherent non-neutrality of its scope, as delineated by its introduction and title; which is fixed by renaming it to a neutral title, editing its introduction, and editing the rest of the article so that all sides of the arguments are presented. Thus one of the tasks is to come up with a suitable name for the topic that doesn't implicitly support one side of the debate to the exclusion of the other — and fixing the non-neutrality of the section in Multiple personality controversy at the same time. (Whether multiple personality is a disorder is one option.) Fixing a bad title doesn't require an administrator to hit a delete button. Any editor with an account has the tools for fixing a bad title. Uncle G 17:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Not sure about the history, but this may be a text broken out from Multiple personality controversy. There does seem to be at least some scholarly use of the phrase "healthy multiplicity" in this sense.[2],[3], [4]. This doesn't seem to be beyond repair. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nonnotable neologism. Article reads like a POV fork from Dissociative Identity Disorder, and the stuff about shamanism is near-complete original research. I had some discussion about these problems with the editors of the page a while ago - they were polite, but unwilling to change the POV/OR of the article. Skinwalker 17:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above users have noted some important considerations. However, I believe that this article concerns a very important subject and thus should be edited to ensure NPOV rather than delated. Mike1981 21:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.