Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drapetomania

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The result was Keep per Snow/Nomination withdrawn - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 02:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drapetomania (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is a long explanation of a psychiatric condition that caused slaves to run away in the 1850s. I tried to remove Oppositional defiant disorder from the See also as it is a real psychiatric diagnosis and it was immediately returned. I no longer can tell what is real anymore on Wikipedia. Whatever the community thinks on this one. Mattisse 00:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep According to Google Books, this seems to show up a lot in print. Probably needs a good deal of cleanup, as most of the article is quotes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand Excellent research. I would prefer to see inline citations. And it was correct to restore the "see also". I would have done the same. Some may suggest we merge with Oppositional defiant disorder, but we shouldn't merge related material into official DSM definitions. That would be POV and Original Research. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, there seem to be a few decent sources. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep This is a bad faith nomination. Nominator added "quotefarm", "citations missing", and "primary sources" banners to the article, but he is upset that I reverted his deletion of a single "See also" link, so he nominated this article for deletion within 45 minutes of his original addition of the banners with the comment "there is no inclination to fix article". He hasn't given anybody a chance to fix the article. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds a bit like a bad faith nom to me, but this user's edit history has me assuming good faith on the nom's part. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Edit history notwithstanding, he is upset that I stepped on his toes. This instance is a bad faith nomination. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The relevance of the link to Oppositional defiant disorder is that drapetomania was a diagnosis to explain the tendency of enslaved Africans to escape. Oppositional defiant disorder is "a pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures". Other "See also" links include Race and intelligence and White Man's Burden. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 00:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we need more articles on older concepts and events. Wikipedia focuses on now. I am always surprised how things from even the 1980s dont have articles. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - My problem is that it is linked with real psychiatric and psychological diagnoses and conditions. If the article wants to exist on its own, then fine. We are trying to clean up Psychology and Psychiatry so that it reflects a professional status. This can be a history or sociology article, or some other category. It is not a Psychology or Psychiatry article so it should not be categorized as such. Oppositional defiant disorder is a controversial disorder for labeling children "as an ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures which supposedly goes beyond the bounds of normal childhood behavior". It is not an adult disorder. And it based on the evaluation that the oppositional behavior is pathological and deserving of a psychiatric diagnosis. It is a controversial ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnosis because some think it is just a way of psychiatrically labeling problem children. It will probably be removed in the next diagnostic manual update. --Mattisse 00:54, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I also sense a bad faith nomination here after reviewing the article's history, most likely because the nom is trying to make a point. Clearly the nom disagrees with the subject, but in no way does that mean the article should be taken off the website. - Cyborg Ninja 01:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As I said, if the author involved is willing to take it out of bonifide psyciatric and psychological categories, I do not care what happens to the article. I do object to the linking of and article 150 years out of date, and written before psychiatry and psychology existed as professionals fields as they do today, to current Diagnostic Manual and ICD categories. --Mattisse 01:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Then why did you ever bother to suggest the article be deleted, especially when you only gave the writers 3 hours notice to change it? And if the consensus is against your opinion, then why should anyone oblige to change it just for you? It is already written in the article that it is an old, archaic diagnosis. If one person out there sees the article and doesn't read beyond one sentence and gets the wrong idea, that is not Wikipedia's problem. Also, bear in mind that there is more than one author for the article. - Cyborg Ninja 01:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although it's considered silly now, it was a theory in 19th century psychology, when things were explained as "brain fever" and "the vapors", and melancholia was treated by a trip to the seashore. This was resurrected in the film C.S.A. presented by Spike Lee. Mandsford 01:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Interesting historical article. Renee 01:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I also question why the owner of the article within minutes replaces the Oppositional defiant disorder link but is not willing to do anything else to fix up the article. The article has existed since April 2005. If the article's owner were really concerned about the article, would he not spend his energies helping out an article that is clearly needs help? I realize his linking to Oppositional defiant disorder was done out of ignorance, but that should not excuse all lack of interest in fixing up the article. --Mattisse 01:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here's a suggestion. Why don't you try to contribute to the article, discuss the problem on the Talk page, or give someone more time than 3 hours after midnight to edit an article before you put it up for deletion? - Cyborg Ninja 01:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

• Comment - Here's another suggestion. Why don't all those folks voting keep work to improve the article. As I have stated my field is psychology/psychiatry and I have no interest in his article. I have a feeling the owner of the article would not like my suggestions anyway as it is his article and he calls the shots, so it would be a total waste of my time. Besides the article owner is not interested enough to improve the article himself so I would not be willing to put energy into it under those conditions. I acknowledge it was a mistake to propose deletion. I did not take fully into account that the link addition of Oppositional defiant disorder was done out of ignorance.

I withdrawn the AFD. I will just make sure that on the Psychology/Psychiatry end of things the article's owner does not disrupt professional articles by adding his link. Perhaps his article can go under the pseudoscience articles containing outdated or fantastic topics like the "bodily humors", or fringe article like Scientology. --Mattisse 02:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Why is the linking wrong? A link the other way would have been wrong, but this is another article on defiance.

--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]

• Answer It can be seem demeaning and pejorative to African Americans, just like today the diagnosis is seen as demeening and pejorative to children today. As mention above, Oppositional defiant disorder is a controversial disorder for labeling children as having "an ongoing pattern of disobedient, hostile, and defiant behavior toward authority figures which supposedly goes beyond the bounds of normal childhood behavior". It is not an adult disorder. And it based on the evaluation that the oppositional behavior is pathological and deserving of a psychiatric diagnosis. It is a controversial ICD-9 and ICD-10 diagnosis because some think it is just a way of psychiatrically labeling problem children when instead the problems should be addressed. It will probably be removed in the next diagnostic manual update. The link would be marginally more meaningful if the author thinks African Americans in the 1850s are equivalent to acting out of problem children of today. But the fact remains that Drapetomania is not a psychiatric diagnosis. --Mattisse 02:55, 5 October 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.