Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child pyromaniac

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 Extensive sourcing belies any argument for deletion. Xoloz (talk) 14:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Child pyromaniac

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

Not totally sure, but seems suspiciously like nonsense. I80and (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with and redirect to Pyromaniac and incorporate distinct content. While I was initially unsure about this article, it just doesn't seem worthy of a separate article. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 01:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If it has its own listing in the DSM then I think it should have its own article—it means that it is a sufficiently important categorical distinction (with its own diagnostic criteria, most likely) from pyromania by itself for the American Psychiatric Association (and whether you agree with them or not doesn't matter too much for the purposes of notability). I don't think a bunch of random Wikipedians with no apparent knowledge of the subject (and I include myself in this) should be deciding what is or what isn't a useful analytical distinction in an expert subject. So somebody with access to a DSM should check and see if it considers it a separate issue from pyromania itself. Let's defer to the experts on this one, shall we? Anyone who is "unsure" probably doesn't have enough knowledge of the subject matter to really have a useful opinion here, and again I count myself in that category (hence I am not offering a vote). --24.147.86.187 (talk) 02:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kudos to Burstoforange (talk · contribs) for providing citations right from the very start. They check out, and there are yet further sources to be had on the subject. This is a perfectly valid subject in its own right, with enough to write about it to warrant a separate article under the umbrella of pyromania. There are entire books related to it. I've no idea why this was thought to be nonsense. This is one of the easiest and most obvious keeps ever. I didn't have to do any research at all, just check the sources that came with the article. Would that more new editors wrote like this! Uncle G (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - This article looks like they took all the words and references from the Pyromania article and added "child" every now and then. All of this information is already covered in the Pyromania article, and should be deleted as pure duplication. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would only look like that to someone who has merely skimmed the article and not read it properly. Read the article carefully, and look at the references. The references are different, and the focus of the article is different, too. It is also untrue that this duplicates the main article. There is quite a lot of content here, dealing specifically with children, that is not in the general article. Uncle G (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Actually, if you want to be technical, when I marked this page it had zero references and was a total mess, so it was not actually "from the start". However, I do agree that merging with Pyromaniac sounds like a good idea, if it is actually encyclopedic.--I80and (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. It really was from the start. The references are right there in the wikitext of the very first version of the article. And of course it is encyclopaedic. Please actually look at the number and depths of sources that cover this particular subject. Finally: Being unwikified is a reason for you, a more experienced editor, to help a novice editor with wikification, not to nominate the article for deletion. Please read our Wikipedia:Deletion policy and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Uncle G (talk) 02:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Seems to be a sub article of pyromania, it is sourced and all but seems like something that could be summed up in a paragraph on Pyromania page. TostitosAreGross (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a real problem that happens in the world. I was going to make this a merge, but the section about the DSM is a pretty compelling reason to keep it. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, a standard psychiatric text, apparently has a separate diagnosis for child pyromania. That in and of itself should establish notability for the topic. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be well sourced, and looks encyclopedic to me. The article really does seem to go into great depth, so I'm not sure about merging-—arf! 03:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-sourced, verifiable, does not meet deletion criteria. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I agree with Squidfryerchef (talk · contribs) and DoubleBlue (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Squidfryerchef. Maxamegalon2000 06:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pyromania. DSM having it separate isn't a completely compelling reason for this article to be separate. Child versions of many mental illnesses seem to regularly be given separate sections, but they are usually kept in the main article. As the main Pyromania is not super huge, it could easily support this topic, particularly when this article is an uncategorized, orphan. No biased for having it later separated back out if the pyromania article later grows large to need sub articles. Also, is it just me or is this article using a LOT of material that appears to have been taken word from word from the Galen Encyclopedia referenced? I know many main stream encyclopedias are not copyrighted, but has anyone checked to make the uses here aren't WP:COPYVIO violations? AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pyromania, which is way too short for such a notable topic. Laypeople aren't going to distinguish between the two types. AnteaterZot (talk) 11:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That laypeople may not understand the distinction is irrelevant. Finding out that there is such a disctinction in the field is one of the things that an encyclopaedia can tell them. What's relevant is whether sources make the distinction. As noted already, there are entire books that concentrate upon this specific subject. Uncle G (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is obviously not nonsense and no other reason for deletion is provided. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Pyromania, as a distinct section within that article. -- The Anome (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: different to (and a longer article than) pyromania. The two articles should be better cross-linked, but deserve to be separate. Suggest a change of title to Child pyromania however in common with other illness/disorder articles. And a good shakeup of the table format. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 14:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks like a good article on a worthy topic with several good referneces. --RucasHost (talk) 14:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to pyromania. Lots of potentially redundant information with the other article. After cleanup doesn't appear sufficient for a size fork. -Verdatum (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: The article repeats a lot of what the pyromania article states. The pyromania article also mentions child pyromania indirectly, mentioning that pyromania could occur at the age of three. This article could be put into a subsection of Pyromania and extend upon that mention of child pyromania. AlcheMister (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it does seem to be a notable subject by itself; the books listed as refs. seem to be self-published, & I wonder if they were actually examined; the other sources are OK.. DGG (talk) 03:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable. I teach about this in Criminal law all the time. Bearian (talk) 02:29, 21 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Child_pyromaniac&oldid=1142652709"