Deletion of Dissociative identity disorder in popular culture

Comment: The TOPIC is clearly notable.  The topic, as a category that notable sources like to list things, has been demonstrated above to be notable.  If the article sucks right now, well, a good starting point would be to blank it and start over with the references linked above... but note I say BLANK and start over, not DELETE () and start over, specifically because I think the history of the page would be valuable to future editors trying to expand the list. ''However'', I'm not convinced that the list really sucks that much right now.  Okay, sure, it doesn't use enough secondary sources, but if the work of fiction itself uses the words "Dissociative Identity Disorder", I think that would just barely be enough for our primary source criteria (that you don't synthesize or reinterpret what the primary source says).  And I highly suspect that most, if not all, of these items on the list meet that criteria.  Sure, secondary sources are always preferred, but there is allowance for primary sources in certain circumstances
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Blow it up and start over (WP:TNT)

Comment: Quoting {{u|Jay32183}} from the 2007 AFD, {{tq|"This list doesn't contain any sourced analysis. Making a list that associates all the fictional works that have MPD is unpublished synthesis from published works, violating WP:OR. If this is not original research then it is a directory of loosely associated topics, violation #DIR"}} Almost 10 years later and I'd say the same rationale still applies. It's still a predominantly unsourced laundry list of works that aren't connected or listed together in reliable sources, and inclusion is based on loosely associated plot points
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)