The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:David-Sarah Hopwood/Healthy multiplicity[edit]

User:David-Sarah Hopwood/Healthy multiplicity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Very stale userspace draft, delete per WP:NOTWEBHOST (I feel it's a bit too soapbox-y to keep it here). The "article" suffers from massive amounts of OR and POV; any of the legit references don't actually mention healthy multiplicity and the external links and so go to some random people's personal websites -- no use can be made of this draft. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 18:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By your comments, are we to assume you've looked into the 3 listed Treeware sources? Achowat (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're asking. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft lists three sources that are offline (made of paper - trees - treeware); you mention that there are no references that mention "Healthy Municipality" and I'm wondering if that means you've actually read the 3 offline sources. Achowat (talk) 22:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that my above question has not been answered, I'm going to !vote Weak Keep. The draft my develop into something, and the claims of OR are unsubstantiated. Achowat (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think people are supposed at least read the article (if it's not too long) before voting on its AfD/MfD. Just look at the statements that the books are supposedly references to, then look at the books, and think if having those statements (supposedly) referenced from these books actually gives this article any legitimacy. No, I haven't read through those three books, I hardly believe that's required of me. What is is reading through the article to determine whether there's anything salvageable. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have, in fact, read the article, which is something you should assume I have done. You made a bold claim, that of Original Research and outright stated that the sources don't mention what they claim to. By your own admission, you haven't checked these sources, and as such, I don't think that claim can stand. Achowat (talk) 19:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you require me to explain to you how having those books as references doesn't help prove the noteworthiness of this subject ("healthy multiplicity")? I thought it was fairly obvious to anyone who'd take a look so I wasn't going to waste my time. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't require it, but it would help the closing Admin understand your reasons for deletion. Achowat (talk) 19:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The statements:

1) "Some contend that the unity of the self is an illusion and that everyone is fundamentally multiple (an opinion similar to the observations of William James and other modernist writers)[1]." (ref to book William James on Exceptional Mental States, 1983) -- this looks like synthesis, the writer zirself guesses that opinion is "similar" to that of William James, also the particular opinion itself seems to be only vaguely, generally related to the concept of "healthy multiplicity" (which in reality actually refers to people who like to roleplay as different characters with their own names and personal histories and appearances and all that, and claim that these characters are "real" and that the person who does this is not insane -- but "healthy" (as opposed to having DID/MPD or delusions); this is way too vaguely related to legitimate philosophy on the Self).

2) "For example, people in nonwestern cultures who are multiple do not express their other selves as "parts of themselves", but as independent souls or spirits." (ref to a medical journal article titled "The interface between multiple personality, spirit mediumship, and hypnosis.") -- to me this looks like synthesis: the people who claim to have "healthy multiplicity" call themselves "multiples", but the people that are referred to here -- people from non-Western cultures who seem to communicate with spirits -- clearly don't self-identify as such, and it's not believable that the journal article referred to them as such either or that it mentioned "healthy multiplicity", which is actually a new invention by some random people and not a legitimate concept in psychology -- "healthy multiplicity" does not inherit its notability from Multiple Personality Disorder.

3) "There is a fair bit of cross-cultural evidence to suggest that a small but persistent fraction of humans everywhere experience themselves as multiple. Many religions recognize shamans, people who claim to communicate with and be possessed by gods or spirits." (ref to book Trance and Possession in Bali) -- it looks like the ref is for the second sentence only and it's the editor's synthesis that shamanism is connected to "healthy multiplicity".

On a separate note, the link/reference to paganwiccan.about.com didn't work so I did a search in that particular About for "healthy multiplicity" and found nothing.

— Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 20:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Healthy multiplicity and recent inactivity. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Jeraphine Gryphon's wonderful synthesis. Achowat (talk) 20:28, 10 February 2012 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.