Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 08:56, 23 March 2022

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Historical figures sometimes considered autistic

• Articles for deletion/People speculated to have been autistic
• Articles for deletion/People speculated to have been autistic (2nd nomination)

• Articles for deletion/Historical figures sometimes considered autistic

Historical figures sometimes considered autistic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is too big a can of worms, whatever the exact title. There are serious problems with attempting any sort of medical diagnosis on a historical figure. I recognise that with some people on this list there are serious grounds for believing that they had an autistic spectrum condition e.g. Henry Cavendish, but with others it could be a fringe theory, there are all shades in between, and where do we draw the line? PatGallacher (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry, but no. It's a mess now because an editor uninformed on Wiki policies and guidelines has been in there messing with it, but it's quite well sourced, or will be, after reverted back to the version before it was damaged. Looks to me like the nominator here didn't bother to glance at the talk page. Everything at the previous AFD is still true-- would have been good of the nominator to review the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have now repaired and restored the article, which is most clearly notable. Keep and change name to Retrospective diagnoses of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Oopsie, well now it's reverted to non-consensus version again; not my problem :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Excuse me, but "uninformed"? I've really had it with your petty insults and accusations against me. You may disagree with me, but personal attacks are uncalled for. Stop it or I will report you to an admin.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact on second thought, I think I will file a report. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#SandyGeorgia--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Have fun with that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Revert to the version listed by SandyGeorgia. A notable topic, though the article still needs improvement. Edward321 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place for arguing for a specific version of the article, merely if the topic of the article is notable enough to deserve coverage.--May Cause Dizziness (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article you have created obscures the topic and its notability; I can understand why the nominator, coming across that version, nominated it for deletion (although it appears s/he didn't read the talk page or look at the article history). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Keep and do whatever clean up is necessary. The topic of individuals who have in recent times been disagnosed with autism appears notable enough, and good sourcing is available for enough entries to make it worthwhile. Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:14, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• As Elen put it, Keep, and whatever cleanup and moving is necessary. A notable and indeed very interesting subject, though one that is certain to be controversial. —innotata 23:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep—I'll openly admit I'm here only because I saw it in Sandy's edit history, but this is a clear case. There are multiple reliable sources here, and it strikes me as a reasonably narrow list. "Opening a can of worms" is not a criteria for deletion. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 12:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. This AfD seems to be just a tool for winning an edit war. There are entire books dedicated to retrospectively diagnosing famous figures with various mental or neurological disorders, e.g. this series. It should not be a surprise that autism is among those illnesses. Retrospective diagnosis of ... may indeed be a better title. Switching the article to prose as suggested by a tag also seems a good idea for something controversial like this. Tijfo098 (talk) 21:45, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree that the previous versions championed by SandyGeorgia are cleaner and more NPOV. NillaGoon (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete - Original research, by definition. Kuguar03 (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but original research by the authors of the sources, surely. The list just collects together instances where a sourced modern view is that the individual was autistic. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2010 (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.