Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Munchausen by Internet

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 Factitious disorder imposed on self. Sandstein 06:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Munchausen by Internet[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)

No secondary sources. Not notable. Never became a diagnosis. Most sources reference Marc Feldman, Munchausen's only or don't meet WP:MEDRS eg journalism. DSM-5 from 2013 did not include this or any reference to Factitious disorder involving online / internet behavior. Unlikely to become separate condition unless diagnostic criteria or prognosis / treatment differ. See DSM-5 p324-326. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to factitious disorder imposed on self This is tricky, medically speaking this is Factitious disorder (why when you do it over the internet would it be a different disease), the observation is unsurprising and the original paper from a different time (with 20-20 hindsight!). So on medical motivations there are none for keeping it. However, it is something of a cultural phenomenon.The term itself is somewhat notable as a cultural phenomenon . There are some secondary medical sources, as is typical of the psychiatric literature there is a clear lack of systematic coverage (not a dig at psychiatry, more a dig at pitiful medical research funding).But should it have its own article? Essentially, the best argument seems to be it is a content fork. Therefore, it should be instead covered at factious disorder, with the appropriate weight (briefly). PainProf (talk) 01:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I realize that we do not care about hits on an article. however I looked and this one sinceJanuary 1, 2020 has 18,581 page views which is 92 per day day. This appears to be a well researched and referenced article. I looked to see if it was synth or OR, and it smacks of it in places. So the article needs ambitious editing, to pare, and reference and remove any synth, however notable topics are not deleted based on needing work. WP:IMPERFECT. WP:ATD-M is a possibility of the paring gets down to a reasonable length as to fit it into the merge target mentioned above: Factitious disorder imposed on self Lightburst (talk) 13:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope nobody minds, I am paring large portions of the extraneous verbosity. The readability was not great.Lightburst (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We get this on Wikipedia too – see WP:ANI flu. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge as per notability. Also repeating lack of secondary sources. Given the popularity of most pages on WP the hits number is tiny plus doesn't count to notably. Amousey (they/them pronouns) (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lack of MEDRS is the key problem I see. I don't think we ever really have a good excuse, and if it gets kept, likely it will need to be paired down heavily. So for more culturally notable than medical diagnoses I think merging is the best way to preserve the content as it is described in the appropriate context. PainProf (talk) 02:21, 28 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.