Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Famous peoples with ADHD

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 DELETE. Rje 00:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famous peoples with ADHD

Similar pages have been deleted (and protected) before; it is unverifiable and hard to maintain [1] [2] [3] --Kevin Walter 12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Conditional keep if sources can be added for those that are verifiable and those that aren't verifiable removed. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 12:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now removed the unsourced entries... that is, all of them. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, possibly speedy as recreated article. What are the criteria for "famous" and how is ADHD verifiable? If kept, correct the "peoples" in the title.

• The definition of famous people is on Wikipedia in the Famous people article and of course in Wikipedia's notability guidelines. ADHD is verifiable if a reputable secondary source reports on it (that means not the Weekly World News), the same way anything else in Wikipedia is verifiable. Of course its quite possible that it may be hard to find good sources for this sort of information. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 13:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Categorize There are categories for people with other diseases (see Category:Cancer survivors, for example), so I don't see why there can't be one for people with ADHD. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 13:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, as no sources are given for the inclusion of any of the people on this list, and therefore removing the unsourced entries is tantamount to blanking the article. To those who say "the linked articles are sources," I'd point out that the reliable source guidelines say Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. Second, when sources are not actually shown visibly in a list, there is no way to tell quickly which of the entries really have sources and which do not. It is frequently the case in lists of this kind that the linked Wikipedia article will not even say that the person [has ADHD] [is bisexual] [is a Brandeis alumnus] [whatever]; far more frequently it will make the assertion but cite no source for it. Lists of this kind simply invite passersby to type in the name of someone they're pretty sure they've heard was really inattentive, then type a pair of square brackets around it, and, voila! it's a blue link. There's no way for anyone to tell whether the person who added the name even looked at the linked article, let alone found and verified a reference in it. List articles where the WP:V verifiability policy is not enforced and sources are not required when items are inserted rapidly become muddled mixtures of perfectly legitimate entries and casual hearsay, that cannot be disentangled without hours of work. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I've now moved the unsourced entries (i.e. all of them) to the article's talk page and rewritten the opening sentences. This old version is the version discussed above. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, unless people start finding sources for any of this. Articles on people mention whether they have cancer or not, they don't tend to mention whether they have ADHD (not to mention that the ADHD article says that diagnosis is controversial). If kept, this should be moved to List of people with ADHD. Notability/famousness is implied and doesn't need to be restated in the title. Recury 17:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

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.