Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrongful involuntary commitment

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 merge to Involuntary commitment. although all discussion referenced redirect, comments on the discussion suggested that some of Wrongful involuntary commitment should be merged over - it is therefore safer to close as merge for now, and allow the important parts to be merged over as per discussion (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 21:05, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongful involuntary commitment[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)

This article appears to be at best a WP:POVFORK of involuntary commitment and at worst a massive WP:SYN violation. The author was looking to get a scientology source whitelisted for use here, and I think that might explain its strident tone. It starts right from the top: "Wrongful involuntary commitment or wrongful commitment refers to the unethical practice where mental health professionals wrongfully deem an individual to have symptoms of a mental disorder, and thereby commit the individual for treatment in a psychiatric hospital. In other words, it is involuntary commitment that is immoral, unjustified, or illegal." Or, you know, it could be a medical or jurisprudential error, but we don't know because there is no offence of "wrongful involuntary commitment" in any country and Google's 66 hits for the term start with this article and then run long on ambulance chasers and short on RS. It is claimed, but the judge is skeptical. Guy (help!) 17:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your argument. If it's medical or jurisprudential error, then it's wrongful commitment, as this article presents. If you read the entirety of the article, it raises several high-profile incidents of wrongful commitment, including the well-known Rosenhan experiment and the Duplessis orphans, where the subjects in both instances were wrongfully committed. The tone isn't meant to be strident, just informative. It's something that happens in the mental health field that is not talked about very often so I thought it would be correct to create this article. I was looking to get the one scientology source whitelisted, not the entire website itself. I fact-checked the article to verify that all of it was true, which it was. It was written nearly two decades ago around the time when the orphans were filing a lawsuit for being wrongfully committed. I thought the source was accessible and concise so that's why I wanted to use that, that's really it. I don't understand how you can jump from me trying to get one fact-checked and factually accurate article whitelisted from an otherwise controversial website, to me then jumping to the inclusion that this Wikipedia article should be deleted. I'd definitely be fine with merging this article into involuntary commitment, but this is a topic that does need to be spoken about. Factfanatic1 (talk) 17:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to involuntary commitment, If it is decided that we need a WP:ATD-M merge what is needed at the target article. Lightburst (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to involuntary commitment. The content of the article can be condensed, properly sourced with removal of POV, and discussed in a balanced way at involuntary commitment and/or medical malpractice. Sundayclose (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to involuntary commitment, with the content in this article bridged over to that article. Balle010 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to involuntary commitment. Nika2020 (talk) 05:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Per above. The content itself essentially needs to be blown up and started over. --Jack Frost (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it needs to be blown up. After the POV, poorly sourced, and irrelevant edits are removed there won't be much left. Sundayclose (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per WP:SNOW, or a highly selective merge of some of the sources. Bearian (talk) 16:12, 30 July 2020 (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.