| Revision as of 01:10, 17 November 2010 editSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,959 edits →Historical figures sometimes considered autistic: oopsie← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:15, 17 November 2010 edit undoSandyGeorgia (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,959 edits →Historical figures sometimes considered autistic: understoodNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| *'''Revert''' to the version listed by SandyGeorgia. A notable topic, though the article still needs improvement. ] (]) 14:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC) | *'''Revert''' to the version listed by SandyGeorgia. A notable topic, though the article still needs improvement. ] (]) 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.--] (]) 23:53, 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.--] (]) 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). ] (]) 01:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:15, 17 November 2010
Historical figures sometimes considered autistic
AfDs for this article:- 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)
- 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)
- 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)