Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-diagnosed Asperger syndrome

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. --Coredesat 19:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Self-diagnosed Asperger syndrome

Self-diagnosed Asperger syndrome (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Cobbled together from unreliable sources, original research, and hoax. The supposed medical journal paper was made up for a joke article on ridiculopathy.com. The hoaxer managed to invent a vaguely plausible title, but apparently thought The Lancet was a monthly. —Celithemis 09:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Deletion How do you self-diagnose Aspergers? I have Aspergers and I went to three doctors before they came to the unanimous conclusion that I had Aspergers. If three trained psychologists had a hard time coming to the Aspergers conclusion, then I doubt you can self-diagnose it. Sidenote, I was told the reason it took three doctors is because Aspergers takes on the symptoms of other psychological problems. - SVRTVDude ^{(Yell - Work)} 09:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• The big red warning light should have gone off in the article creator's mind when xe found that xe wasn't permitted to enter the URL when attempting to cite Encyclopaedia Dramatica. This article has zero reliable sources, and is wholly sourced to joke articles and discussion forum posts by unidentifiable people. The web page on Ridiculopathy actually says outright that it is a joke and should not be taken seriously, twice even. The only sources that could be reliable are the two medical journal papers. But one doesn't exist and the other doesn't support the content of this article. I've checked volume 368 issues 9551 to 9554 of The Lancet, and they have no such article by Leon McCouch. ("Lie on my couch", I suspect.) The journal article in ANZJoP (DOI:10.1046/j.1440-1614.2001.0896a.x) written by Halaz is in fact a book review, of a book by the same title ("Attention-Deficit Disorders and Comorbidities in Children, Adolescents, and Adults", ISBN 0880487119) written by Thomas Brown. It's about ADHD.

  Although it may have been created in good faith, this article is based entirely upon hoax and joke sources. Delete. Uncle G 11:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Not much could be added after Uncle G. Pavel Vozenilek 11:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Rewrite and Keep, alright, the current page is obviously a hoax, but I think it's a topic worthy of an article, once we remove all of the obvious hoaxery. If nobody else is willing, I will do this. Lankiveil 12:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC).
• Keep as per User:Lankiveil - now that he's removed the joke websites used as sources, I think the article is fine. MichelleG 13:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Removing the joke sources left it with no sources at all. Self-diagnosis may be a legitimate topic within the Asperger syndrome article, but where are the sources to demonstrate that this is a distinct, named phenomenon notable enough for its own article? —Celithemis
• Delete unsourced and fails WP:V. If needed a small section should be created to cover the self diagnosis of Asperger syndrome phenomena. Nuttah68 13:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• merge to Asperger's syndrome. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 16:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep This may be an emerging social trend rather than an actual condition. Perhaps a search could be made on that basis. 514 ghits, many on Asperger discussion boards and so on. This is real, but just under the radar. Totnesmartin 17:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax. Leon McCouch, indeed. Sandstein 17:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I was just on the way to AfD this myself. The hoaxes and jokes exist because the idea rings true in some internet communities, but that doesn't make actual reliable sources spring up out of thin air. Opabinia regalis 17:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete if at all possible. Get this crap outta here. Promoting self-diagnosis of any such condition is akin to kneeling down on Interstate 5 in Seattle during rush-hour traffic (i.e., really incredibly stupid by several orders of magnitude). --Dennisthe2 19:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Downgrade to Delete. All it does is briefly explain the situation at hand, and while the advice therein is certainly sound now (see a doctor, dammit!)...well, that's not encyclopedic, that's just common sense. --Dennisthe2 00:28, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy if possible under criteria. This is the worst kind of hoax—subtle and created under a "legitimate" title that people may be searching for. If any reliable information on the topic exists, it should go in the Asperger syndrome article. BTW the only McCouch on PubMed is Susan R. McCouch, a Cornell plant biologist. Fvasconcellos 20:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete This this article has no notability, reliability, or verifiability. Liberal Classic 20:48, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR that cannot be salvaged. --Dhartung | Talk 21:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete without any kind of sourcing, there's no reason to believe this is notable. Should we have an article on Self-diagnosed ulcerative colitis? GabrielF 23:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, article is on internet social phenomenon, which is very real. Nobody self-diagnoses with ulcerative colitis to make themselves look like a special and unique snowflake, that's why we don't need an article on that. Dr Popularity 01:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
• Merge or, failing reliability, just redirect to Asperger's syndrome. Give anyone a health book (or an encyclopaedia) and they're ready to diagnose themselves with just about anything - especially psychological issues. (I'm pretty sure I'm not paranoid myself. I'm actually right on verge of uncovering the global motorist conspiracy to make cars appear just as you are about to cross the road, no matter how quiet day.) That's not notable in itself, not even if it's an "internet phenomenon". However, psychology articles can cover problems related to self-diagnosis. There's just no need to cover them in a separate article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 10:05, 14 February 2007 (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.