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. The article was entirely rewritten to describe an apparently different topic beginning on August 18. The earlier comments are therefore inapplicable, and the (few) subsequent comments advocate keeping. That's without prejudice to a full AfD about the new topic.  Sandstein  06:20, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiplicity (psychology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)

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

Not a recognized psychiatric condition. This, like otherkin, is a fictional online trend popularized at sites like Tumblr. It literally did not exist a few years ago. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 03:15, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, original research. JoshuSasori (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or fix, I read the page, the authors are still operating in a fringe area. As the page is, this is not a recognized psychiatric condition. All people have multiple states to their one personality, thus the term multiples. It's not unique. Anyone not understanding this needs to brush up on your psychology. Tanya~talk page 04:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Google hits are not usually enough, but google scholar hits might be; there are scholarly discussions of healthy multiplicity, [1], as well as straight-up multiplicity [2], within the context of dissociative identity disorder. Truddi Chase has written a book (When Rabbit Howls) about her perceived experience with healthy multiplicity, and there are popular/personal pages as well [3]. A germ of a redirect page may exist if someone wants to write it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 04:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those Google Scholar hits have nothing to do with the subject of this article, or are talking about it in the context of dissociative identity disorder. Therefore, this is article is unencyclopedic and inappropriate. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 04:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The idea that having multiple personalities may be healthy rather than pathological is notable, being documented in detail in works such as The Cambridge Companion to Jung; Multiplicity: The New Science of Personality, Identity, and the Self; and The Plural Self: Multiplicity in Everyday Life. Wikipedia is not the DSMMD. Warden (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have to remember that ALL people have multiple parts to the personality, not just those with dissociative disorders. If I were looking for a page titled multiples or multiplicity, I would expect to find a page on aspects of the normal and multiple parts of the personality. Perhaps a better title will serve this cause. Tanya~talk page 21:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that is the case, I see no reason to include this topic in Wikipedia. The existence of a few fringe sources is insufficient due to the fact that the mainstream psychiatric profession has yet to recognize this as a legitimate condition (apart from, say, Munchausen by Internet). That would make this original research. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 21:46, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight, so I don't misunderstand. Are you saying that DID is fringe or that the term multiplicity is fringe? DID is in the DSM IV and soon to be released DSM 5. As for fringe topics, I hate that they make their way to WP! Tanya~talk page 21:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My answer is this: DID ≠ Multiplicity. At least not in the way I have seen the terms used (again, on shitty LOOK AT ME blogging sites such as Tumblr). Redirect this page to Dissociative Identity Disorder if you must, but keep this sort of crap out of Wikipedia. What's next, are we going to have entries on "trans-ethnic" people, which is the newest made-up-but-oppressed identity making its rounds on the internet? --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 22:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not a recognized term in psychology. Needs reliable sources which doesn't have. Because some autobiographical writers or laymen have used the word doesn't make it a legitimate psychological term. Agree with nominator. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. 00:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC) • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all of the above. Note that the first edit summary from the creation of the article was "the information is suppressed by the psychiatric community" — basically someone is trying to push their fringe views here. Like editor Eastlaw, I'm familiar with the online communities that are trying to make "multiplicity" a thing, but fact is that it's not a thing, not yet. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why is the mainstream psychiatric community and the DSM even relevant? This isn't a psychological issue so much as a cultural/spiritual one. How about we just change the title of this article to Multiplicity(cultural) or something similar? The fact that the psychiatric community does not acknowledge the claims of a community does not alter the fact that the community exists. I happen to know a dozen or so multiples. All the arguments I'm seeing could be applied to the articles on Wicca, Witchcraft, Otherkin, and a broad range of other subjects. Just because you don't believe it doesn't change the fact that it's out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Wrong Alice (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says that the community exists? You know it does and I know it does, but writing from what we know constitutes original research which is frowned upon in Wikipedia. Reliable sources are needed, sources that actually describe "multiplicity" as you know it (people having "headmates" that are actually "individual persons"), not just some vague mentions about people using different personalities in their daily lives. If no such sources exist then Wikipedia shouldn't have an article on the topic, simple as that. You can't use Wikipedia as a soapbox for your cause, I'm sorry. (If you go and have a look at the Otherkin article, you'll see that it is well-sourced, so no, the same arguments couldn't be used against that.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 07:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Multiplicity (human persona) or similar. The delete votes are solidly based on policy with respect to the orginal creation, but the good Colonel has transformed the article so its now about multiple persona as they are used by regular people. The article now boasts sources from Kent State UP and Cambridge University Press. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A far more common name in psychology would be Multiple Personality Disorder, but if you click on that, you get redirected to dissociative identity disorder. Wouldn't it be better to merge the content of this article to the other one, and to rename it as "Multiple Personality Disorder"? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• No. Because Dissociative identity disorder (DID) is the diagnosis per the DSM which defines the criteria for diagnosing mental disorders, like Major depressive disorder for example. DSM no long uses the diagnosis Multiple personality disorder (which is why that link is a redirect to DID). For material to be added to the DID article it must follow the guidelines in reliable sources for medical articles. So unless you can provide sources that follow this guideline, the material in Multiplicity (psychology) cannot be added to the DID article. Jung, for example, is not considered a reliable source for the current status of DID diagnosis. Nor are books that haven't been peer reviewed. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, or at least for the time being until reviewed by professionals in Project Psychology. It is not disruptive and it's not a disorder thus may not have notability as other well documented disorders. It is a stub as an alternative for the word Multiplicity. Wikipedia tries to retain as much knowledge as possible so review it before deletion. Let me ask the science reference desk and see if anyone works in the field has more to offer. I shall post this link in project psychology too. Please wait.

Watch responses from these two places:

Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Reference_Needed_for_Multiplicity_.28psychology.29

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Mutiplicity

-- RexRowan  Talk  10:13, 22 August 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.