Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Truman Show delusion

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 keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Truman Show delusion[edit]

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

I'm proposing the deletion of The Truman Show delusion based on the fact that, according to the stub itself: "The term was coined in 2008 by brothers Joel and Ian Gold, a psychiatrist and a neurophilosopher, respectively, after the 1998 film The Truman Show. It is not officially recognized nor listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association." So how is it any different than Schizophrenia, which actually is recognized and listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association? Furthermore, as an editor mentioned on the article's Talk page, the article isn't just lacking in notability or credibility (as the brothers who coined the term do not meet the criterion for WP:NOTABILITY themselves), it could also be viewed as destructive in lieu of real domestic surveillance crimes against citizens such as COINTELPRO, also known as "Gang Stalking". WikiEditorial101 (talk) 03:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- No real policy basis given for deletion. Article (which is not a stub) is well-sourced by secondary sources. Notability is not dependent on the notability of the people connected to the subject, nor is every psychological condition listed in the DSM, since there can be a lag between clinical experience and inclusion in the Manual. (And one should also be aware that homosexuality was listed in the DSM until 1973, an object lesson in putting too much reliance on the DSM.) As to the claim that the article "could also be viewed as destructive in lieu of real domestic surveillance crimes against citizens such as COINTELPRO, also known as 'Gang Stalking'", I have no idea what to make of that, or what its relevance is to whether an article should be included in Wikipedia. I can't think of any policy -- aside from BLP in some circumstances -- that disallows an article on the basis that it might have social consequences, even assuming that what the nom claims might happen were the case, which seems far-fetched. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It is clearly notable, as the 17 citations of the original Gold and Gold article listed on Google Scholar show (https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?cites=15948633786574470182&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en). It has even entered mainstream media, with for instance the New Yorker reporting on it in the Sep 16, 2013 issue. I do not understand the second objection. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:26, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I offer no opinion on the nomination itself at this time. @WikiEditorial101: For future nominations, please fully follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 14:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm at a loss how an article with cites to New York Times, Newsweek, and the British Journal of Psychiatry, all of which significantly cover the topic, could ever not pass WP:GNG, whether the DSM recognizes it or not. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It may have been coined by two people connected to its use, but it caught on. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2017 (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.