Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multiplicity (psychology) (2nd)

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 no consensus. Sandstein 21:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplicity (psychology)[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Looking through the content I think it's worth beginning the AfD process. Looking back through the various versions of the article, the concept that the article refers to has changed multiple times, it's unclear whether Multiplicity refers to the use of multiple personality styles, Dissociative identity disorder, Dissociative identity disorder as experienced by some individuals, or somewhat irrelevant original research on how Plato and Shakespeare vaguely touched upon the issue. . All of these subjects are better covered by other articles. The most recent incarnation of the article is already covered at Dissociative Identity Disorder#Rights movement. Vitalis196 (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Between the sources mentioned in the latest afd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Multiplicity_(psychology), on the talkpages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multiplicity_(psychology)#Parking_some_potential_sources, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Multiplicity_(psychology)#Topic and the latest revision before the clean up in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Multiplicity_(psychology)&oldid=996407983 as a distinct topic for concept of general multiplicity it at least in my eyes meets notability guidelines and is thus suitable as a topic with at least https://aeon.co/ideas/what-we-can-learn-about-respect-and-identity-from-plurals, https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vdxgw9/when-multiple-personalities-are-not-a-disorder-400 being full articles on the topic some of the other sources having significant mentions plus there being several books written on this. There is also a lot of referenced research articles on the concept as well. Though there is certainly discussion to be had for which of the sources to use and rewriting the article to use sourced material. But it doesn't make it not a notable subject. How much it intersects with DID is in itself a topic of discussion in regards to multiplicity and should probably be included in some way but multiplicity and DID are talked about as distinct concepts here(with multiplicity being a common symptom of DID) not as a rights movement for DID specifically. Seteleechete (talk) 21:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from. The version you cite from before the cleanup includes an entire unsourced section about how some multiples perceive the experiences. Many of the key claims made and the terminology used originate from this single shared understanding of how people who identify as Plurals or multiples see themselves. While you're correct to point out that some of this content can be sourced, this understanding of what multiplicity/plurality is and how it's experienced is not a universal or widely held understanding of what the Psychological concept of multiplicity is. It's very specific to a single and primarily online community of people who exhibit these symptoms.

This leads on to what I see as the main problem with the article. From it's conception and the previous articles for deletion process, there has never been a clear understanding of exactly what this article is about. There's a particular confusion between multiplicity in the sense that an individual may use multiple personality styles, or show different sides of themselves to different people or in different circumstances (as written about for example by Rita Carter), and the use of multiplicity to refer to a symptom of Dissociative identity disorder. Then beyond this there's a reference to this particular subculture (for want of a better word) of people experience these symptoms of DID.

If the article has a future, there needs to be a clear decision on how these different topics are delineated within it, and all of the aspects need to be verifiably sourced and placed within context. --Vitalis196 (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well in the first place I don't think there is a strong need for us to delianate what exactly multiplicity is supposed to specifically represent if there are multiple ways to represent the psychological concept of multiplicity. Trying to decide on it ourselves would be too much original research anyway. We can just add any position and view on what it can represent or how it can be viewed as long as it can be sufficiently sourced(be it relations to DID or about the online community which uses the concept). I think this is a much better way of doing things than trying to limit it to some specific idea/subpart of the concept multiplicity. Just represent the various positions/ideas of various sources on the subject rather than decide ourselves what it's supposed to refer to.

Granted the Rita idea and the plurality idea of multiplicity might still be too far apart for a single article in that regard but it's not uncommon to view plurality as distinct parts of the self in some circles even as others see it as distinct identities/people.(the confusion in this regard matches the general disparate state about the concept in general). Either way I don't think these concepts are so far apart that they need to be split up beyond maybe being within seperate sections/paragraphs/sentences in the same article(or just making sure context is clear). Though if there has to be a choice I for sure think the plurality line is more appropriate in general (there is no real conflict as I can see relating it to what it means within DID anyway, though the main focus should probably still be outside DID since that got it's own article anyway) Seteleechete (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree entirely that the more tenuous definitions of multiplicity which are analogous to Dissociative identity disorder might be better covered within that article - which is one of the reasons I nominated the article for deletion.

I don't quite understand your reasoning when you make the case that the DID related content is better covered elsewhere, but content referring to a specific plurality community (which arguably is how some individuals experience DID) should be prioritised over Carter and Jung's use of the term. Of the two/three? concepts shoehorned into this article, the Carter/Jungian concept of Multiplicity is probably the most notable.

The AFD discussion in 2012 outlined rather clearly that this article ought not to be about a community or otherwise a particular shared narrative of how some people experience DID or plurality. --Vitalis196 (talk) 07:37, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the article and sources I have to use as it currently stands is however mostly about the plurality part of multiplicity(before the clean up, and I will admit that it needed more sourcing than it had) and there are at this sufficient sources to cover that topic and multiplicity(psychology) is still an appropriate title for it. Though I don't necessarily oppose a rename(if it is really necessary).

We could split the article as well though I am unsure exactly how. I don't know how much sourcing there is about the jungian/rita idea since I only really looked for sources on the plurality idea. I note that a good chunk of such material was moved to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_style at some point. So I propose we move most of the material in that regard there instead in such a case. Some parts of such works could also still be appropriate to plurality context of multiplicity.

Though I still think it's entirely possible to cover both ideas in a single page just with different paragraphs which could also be an option. Either way, there is sufficient material for an article about the plurality idea of multiplicity so I don't think deletion is appropriate. Also, I don't think it was at all made clear how the article should be rewritten before(hence the current confusion) or that it even needs to be relevant to this discussion anymore. I have updated the article with a paragraph for "personality styles"(taken from an earlier version) and one for plural identities(sourced) which I hope will make it more appropriate. Seteleechete (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, the core issues here aren't addressed in the slightest. The article is still playing fast and loose with terminology and it is very difficult to understand what exactly the article is focused on.

While you have restored and found citations for content, it is fundamentally still bad content. The section on Multiplicity as systems of plural identities is a fragment that does not really explain exactly what plurality is and doesn't fit with the rest of the article, and I've just removed it.

Multiplicity =/= Dissociative identity disorder, but since the article keeps drifting back to unencyclopedic content about matters better covered by existing articles on Dissociative identity disorder and related phenomena, or indeed an entirely new article about the plural community if that's warranted, it rather confirms my suspicions that this article doesn't have a defined role. --Vitalis196 (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While the article is not in a good state, I don't find the delete rationale at all convincing. We have many articles on indubitably notable concepts where we can't give an unambiguous definition because it is a matter of controversy: among the level 2 vital articles, I'd single out life, the arts, and logic as examples. We don't delete articles because they are a bit confused, we delete them because it is easier to start over than to work with what's there (see WP:TNT), which is not the case that is being made here. Can Vitalis196 rework the delete rationale if WP:TNT is what is sought? Otherwise I will !vote keep. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chalst That's a fair point. I don't see the issue as a lack of an unambiguous definition but more of a case where content has been shoehorned in to fit a title. If you look back to the first deletion discussion you'll see that it was essentially rewritten, but even then there was a suggestion that it perhaps ought to have been renamed or developed as a subsection of another article. Unfortunately the way this has been done means that different editors have been working on it with entirely different conceptions of what the article is from others, and the article is (at best) a messy hybrid of several conflated ideas, that likely don't belong in the same article.

As per WP:TNT I think it'd be better to clear it all away and start over. --Vitalis196 (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Draftify) - This article could itself be described as a multiplicity... It trys to define the term in a myriad of ways, and I walked away from this article more confused than before reading it. I am fully aware that AfD is not cleanup, however the article seems quite irredeemable in its current state and I am of the view that it should be blown up to allow something functional to hopefully emerge from the rubble. I would not object to Draftification as an alternative to allow the article to be incubated in a more appropriate venue until ready for mainspace. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TNT does nothing in resolving the fundamental issue here(what this article is about) as such it seems like a pointless action to me. In any case, the way I see it you can either split the article or keep both concepts in the same article. I don't see a fundamental problem here since many things have multiple loosely related concepts under the same article, I am also unsure that the concepts are so far apart they need separate articles(could be wrong), particularly in such a contentious subject that by its nature has many different views on what it's supposed to be(with many articles having multiple views on contentious definitions). In either case, I believe there is sufficient notability for the plurality aspects of this article(as such I have restored them) and the title is fitting for them as such at the very least those aspects could be kept rather than having a deletion (and the personality state aspects moved to for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_style in such a case). Seteleechete (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seteleechete I've undone your changes. I removed that content for a reason. As per the previous deletion discussion, this article is not and was never intended to be about how a certain community experience plurality, changing it into that and moving all the other content elsewhere to make way for it isn't the route we ought to go down. Vitalis196 (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not convinced by the original delete rationale, that it is not altogether clear what the article means by 'multiplicity', for the reason I gave in my comment from 8th January. Since the topic does appear to be notable and the issues do not seem to rise to the level of WP:TNT, I think the discussion of the way forward for the article is best handled on the article's talk page. I recommend brainstorming ideas for the future of the article (e.g., propose rival definitions, rename to something giving a broader or narrower scope, find possible merge targets) and perhaps hold an RfC if the discussion gets stuck again. I don't get the impression that much effort has been put into finding radical changes other than deletion, which normally should be preferred. — Charles Stewart (talk) 22:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 17:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Not quite at the TNT level, and one can reasonably understand what the article is about. The topic is notable, although, of course, further improvements to the article are needed. Nsk92 (talk) 14:19, 29 January 2021 (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.